*****For Essays Guru Only*****
YellowLabHarley
chapter_9.pdf
1
This text was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License without
attribution as requested by the work’s original creator or licensee.
2
Chapter 9 Managing Groups and Teams
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:
1. Recognize and understand group dynamics and development.
2. Understand the difference between groups and teams.
3. Compare and contrast different types of teams.
4. Understand how to design effective teams.
5. Explore ideas around teams and ethics.
6. Understand cross-cultural influences on teams.
Teamwork at General Electric In Durham, North Carolina, Robert Henderson was opening a factory for
General Electric Company (GE). The goal of the factory was to manufacture
the largest commercial jet engine in the world. Henderson’s opportunity was
great and so were his challenges. GE hadn’t designed a jet engine from the
ground up for over two decades. Developing the jet engine project had already
cost GE $1.5 billion. That was a huge sum of money to invest—and an
unacceptable sum to lose should things go wrong in the manufacturing stage.
How could one person fulfill such a vital corporate mission? The answer,
Henderson decided, was that one person couldn’t fulfill the mission. Even
Jack Welch, GE’s CEO at the time said, “We now know where productivity
comes from. It comes from challenged, empowered, excited, rewarded teams
of people.”
Empowering factory workers to contribute to GE’s success sounded great in
theory. But how to accomplish these goals in real life was a more challenging
question. Factory floors, traditionally, are unempowered workplaces where
3
workers are more like cogs in a vast machine than self-determining team
members.
In the name of teamwork and profitability, Henderson traveled to other
factories looking for places where worker autonomy was high. He
implemented his favorite ideas at the factory at Durham. Instead of hiring
generic “mechanics,” for example, Henderson hired staffers with FAA
mechanic’s licenses. This superior training created a team capable of making
vital decisions with minimal oversight, a fact that upped the factory’s output
and his workers’ feelings of worth.
Henderson’s “self-managing” factory functioned beautifully. And it looked
different, too. Plant manager Jack Fish described Henderson’s radical factory,
saying Henderson “didn't want to see supervisors, he didn't want to see
forklifts running all over the place, he didn't even want it to look traditional.
There's clutter in most plants, racks of parts and so on. He didn't want that.”
Henderson also contracted out non-job-related chores, such as bathroom
cleaning, that might have been assigned to workers in traditional factories. His
insistence that his workers should contribute their highest talents to the team
showed how much he valued them. And his team valued their jobs in turn.
Six years later, a Fast Company reporter visiting the plant noted,
“GE/Durham team members take such pride in the engines they make that
they routinely take brooms in hand to sweep out the beds of the 18-wheelers
that transport those engines—just to make sure that no damage occurs in
transit.” For his part, Henderson, who remained at GE beyond the project,
noted, “I was just constantly amazed by what was accomplished there.”
4
GE’s bottom line showed the benefits of teamwork, too. From the early 1980s,
when Welch became CEO, until 2000, when he retired, GE generated more
wealth than any organization in the history of the world.
Sources: Fishman, C. (1999, September). How teamwork took flight. Fast
Company. Retrieved August 1, 2008,
from http://www.fastcompany.com/node/38322/print; Lear, R. (1998, July–
August). Jack Welch speaks: Wisdom from the world's greatest business
leader, Chief Executive; Guttman, H. (2008, January–February). Leading
high-performance teams: Horizontal, high-performance teams with real
decision-making clout and accountability for results can transform a
company. Chief Executive, 231, 33.
9.1 Group Dynamics
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Understand the difference between informal and formal groups.
2. Learn the stages of group development.
3. Identify examples of the punctuated equilibrium model.
4. Learn how group cohesion affects groups.
5. Learn how social loafing affects groups.
6. Learn how collective efficacy affects groups.
Types of Groups: Formal and Informal
What is a group? A group is a collection of individuals who interact with each
other such that one person’s actions have an impact on the others. In
organizations, most work is done within groups. How groups function has
5
important implications for organizational productivity. Groups where people
get along, feel the desire to contribute to the team, and are capable of
coordinating their efforts may have high performance levels, whereas teams
characterized by extreme levels of conflict or hostility may demoralize
members of the workforce.
In organizations, you may encounter different types of
groups. Informal work groups are made up of two or more individuals who are
associated with one another in ways not prescribed by the formal
organization. For example, a few people in the company who get together to
play tennis on the weekend would be considered an informal group. A
formal work group is made up of managers, subordinates, or both with close
associations among group members that influence the behavior of individuals
in the group. We will discuss many different types of formal work groups later
on in this chapter.
Stages of Group Development
Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing
American organizational psychologist Bruce Tuckman presented a robust
model in 1965 that is still widely used today. Based on his observations of
group behavior in a variety of settings, he proposed a four-stage map of group
evolution, also known as the forming-storming-norming-
performing model. [1]
Later he enhanced the model by adding a fifth and final
stage, the adjourning phase. Interestingly enough, just as an individual moves
through developmental stages such as childhood, adolescence, and adulthood,
so does a group, although in a much shorter period of time. According to this
theory, in order to successfully facilitate a group, the leader needs to move
through various leadership styles over time. Generally, this is accomplished by
6
first being more directive, eventually serving as a coach, and later, once the
group is able to assume more power and responsibility for itself, shifting to a
delegator. While research has not confirmed that this is descriptive of how
groups progress, knowing and following these steps can help groups be more
effective. For example, groups that do not go through the storming phase early
on will often return to this stage toward the end of the group process to
address unresolved issues. Another example of the validity of the group
development model involves groups that take the time to get to know each
other socially in the forming stage. When this occurs, groups tend to handle
future challenges better because the individuals have an understanding of
each other’s needs.
Forming
In the forming stage, the group comes together for the first time. The
members may already know each other or they may be total strangers. In
either case, there is a level of formality, some anxiety, and a degree of
guardedness as group members are not sure what is going to happen next.
“Will I be accepted? What will my role be? Who has the power here?” These
are some of the questions participants think about during this stage of group
formation. Because of the large amount of uncertainty, members tend to be
polite, conflict avoidant, and observant. They are trying to figure out the “rules
of the game” without being too vulnerable. At this point, they may also be
quite excited and optimistic about the task at hand, perhaps experiencing a
level of pride at being chosen to join a particular group. Group members are
trying to achieve several goals at this stage, although this may not necessarily
be done consciously. First, they are trying to get to know each other. Often this
can be accomplished by finding some common ground. Members also begin to
explore group boundaries to determine what will be considered acceptable
behavior. “Can I interrupt? Can I leave when I feel like it?” This trial phase
7
may also involve testing the appointed leader or seeing if a leader emerges
from the group. At this point, group members are also discovering how the
group will work in terms of what needs to be done and who will be responsible
for each task. This stage is often characterized by abstract discussions about
issues to be addressed by the group; those who like to get moving can become
impatient with this part of the process. This phase is usually short in duration,
perhaps a meeting or two.
Storming
Once group members feel sufficiently safe and included, they tend to enter
the storming phase. Participants focus less on keeping their guard up as they
shed social facades, becoming more authentic and more argumentative. Group
members begin to explore their power and influence, and they often stake out
their territory by differentiating themselves from the other group members
rather than seeking common ground. Discussions can become heated as
participants raise contending points of view and values, or argue over how
tasks should be done and who is assigned to them. It is not unusual for group
members to become defensive, competitive, or jealous. They may even take
sides or begin to form cliques within the group. Questioning and resisting
direction from the leader is also quite common. “Why should I have to do this?
Who designed this project in the first place? Why do I have to listen to you?”
Although little seems to get accomplished at this stage, group members are
becoming more authentic as they express their deeper thoughts and feelings.
What they are really exploring is “Can I truly be me, have power, and be
accepted?” During this chaotic stage, a great deal of creative energy that was
previously buried is released and available for use, but it takes skill to move
the group from storming to norming. In many cases, the group gets stuck in
the storming phase.
8
OB Toolbox: Avoid Getting Stuck in the Storming Phase! There are several steps you can take to avoid getting stuck in the storming
phase of group development. Try the following if you feel the group process
you are involved in is not progressing:
Normalize conflict. Let members know this is a natural phase in the group-
formation process.
Be inclusive. Continue to make all members feel included and invite all views
into the room. Mention how diverse ideas and opinions help foster creativity
and innovation.
Make sure everyone is heard. Facilitate heated discussions and help
participants understand each other.
Support all group members. This is especially important for those who feel
more insecure.
Remain positive. This is a key point to remember about the group’s ability to
accomplish its goal.
Don’t rush the group’s development. Remember that working through the
storming stage can take several meetings.
Once group members discover that they can be authentic and that the group is
capable of handling differences without dissolving, they are ready to enter the
next stage, norming.
Norming
“We survived!” is the common sentiment at the norming stage. Group
members often feel elated at this point, and they are much more committed to
each other and the group’s goal. Feeling energized by knowing they can handle
the “tough stuff,” group members are now ready to get to work. Finding
themselves more cohesive and cooperative, participants find it easy to
9
establish their own ground rules (or norms) and define their operating
procedures and goals. The group tends to make big decisions, while subgroups
or individuals handle the smaller decisions. Hopefully, at this point the group
is more open and respectful toward each other, and members ask each other
for both help and feedback. They may even begin to form friendships and
share more personal information with each other. At this point, the leader
should become more of a facilitator by stepping back and letting the group
assume more responsibility for its goal. Since the group’s energy is running
high, this is an ideal time to host a social or team-building event.
Performing
Galvanized by a sense of shared vision and a feeling of unity, the group is
ready to go into high gear. Members are more interdependent, individuality
and differences are respected, and group members feel themselves to be part
of a greater entity. At the performing stage, participants are not only getting
the work done, but they also pay greater attention to how they are doing it.
They ask questions like, “Do our operating procedures best support
productivity and quality assurance? Do we have suitable means for addressing
differences that arise so we can preempt destructive conflicts? Are we relating
to and communicating with each other in ways that enhance group dynamics
and help us achieve our goals? How can I further develop as a person to
become more effective?” By now, the group has matured, becoming more
competent, autonomous, and insightful. Group leaders can finally move into
coaching roles and help members grow in skill and leadership.
Adjourning
Just as groups form, so do they end. For example, many groups or teams
formed in a business context are project oriented and therefore are temporary
in nature. Alternatively, a working group may dissolve due to an
10
organizational restructuring. Just as when we graduate from school or leave
home for the first time, these endings can be bittersweet, with group members
feeling a combination of victory, grief, and insecurity about what is coming
next. For those who like routine and bond closely with fellow group members,
this transition can be particularly challenging. Group leaders and members
alike should be sensitive to handling these endings respectfully and
compassionately. An ideal way to close a group is to set aside time to debrief
(“How did it all go? What did we learn?”), acknowledge each other, and
celebrate a job well done.
The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
As you may have noted, the five-stage model we have just reviewed is a linear
process. According to the model, a group progresses to the performing stage,
at which point it finds itself in an ongoing, smooth-sailing situation until the
group dissolves. In reality, subsequent researchers, most notably Joy H.
Karriker, have found that the life of a group is much more dynamic and
cyclical in nature. [2]
For example, a group may operate in the performing stage
for several months. Then, because of a disruption, such as a competing
emerging technology that changes the rules of the game or the introduction of
a new CEO, the group may move back into the storming phase before
returning to performing. Ideally, any regression in the linear group
progression will ultimately result in a higher level of functioning. Proponents
of this cyclical model draw from behavioral scientist Connie Gersick’s study
of punctuated equilibrium. [3]
The concept of punctuated equilibrium was first proposed in 1972 by
paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, who both believed that
evolution occurred in rapid, radical spurts rather than gradually over time.
Identifying numerous examples of this pattern in social behavior, Gersick
11
found that the concept applied to organizational change. She proposed that
groups remain fairly static, maintaining a certain equilibrium for long periods
of time. Change during these periods is incremental, largely due to the
resistance to change that arises when systems take root and processes become
institutionalized. In this model, revolutionary change occurs in brief,
punctuated bursts, generally catalyzed by a crisis or problem that breaks
through the systemic inertia and shakes up the deep organizational structures
in place. At this point, the organization or group has the opportunity to learn
and create new structures that are better aligned with current realities.
Whether the group does this is not guaranteed. In sum, in Gersick’s model,
groups can repeatedly cycle through the storming and performing stages, with
revolutionary change taking place during short transitional windows. For
organizations and groups who understand that disruption, conflict, and chaos
are inevitable in the life of a social system, these disruptions represent
opportunities for innovation and creativity.
Cohesion
Cohesion can be thought of as a kind of social glue. It refers to the degree of
camaraderie within the group. Cohesive groups are those in which members
are attached to each other and act as one unit. Generally speaking, the more
cohesive a group is, the more productive it will be and the more rewarding the
experience will be for the group’s members. [4]
Members of cohesive groups
tend to have the following characteristics: They have a collective identity; they
experience a moral bond and a desire to remain part of the group; they share a
sense of purpose, working together on a meaningful task or cause; and they
establish a structured pattern of communication.
The fundamental factors affecting group cohesion include the following:
12
Similarity. The more similar group members are in terms of age, sex,
education, skills, attitudes, values, and beliefs, the more likely the group
will bond.
Stability. The longer a group stays together, the more cohesive it
becomes.
Size. Smaller groups tend to have higher levels of cohesion.
Support. When group members receive coaching and are encouraged to
support their fellow team members, group identity strengthens.
Satisfaction. Cohesion is correlated with how pleased group members
are with each other’s performance, behavior, and conformity to group
norms.
As you might imagine, there are many benefits in creating a cohesive group.
Members are generally more personally satisfied and feel greater self-
confidence and self-esteem when in a group where they feel they belong. For
many, membership in such a group can be a buffer against stress, which can
improve mental and physical well-being. Because members are invested in the
group and its work, they are more likely to regularly attend and actively
participate in the group, taking more responsibility for the group’s
functioning. In addition, members can draw on the strength of the group to
persevere through challenging situations that might otherwise be too hard to
tackle alone.
OB Toolbox: Steps to Creating and Maintaining a Cohesive Team Align the group with the greater organization. Establish common objectives
in which members can get involved.
Let members have choices in setting their own goals. Include them in
decision making at the organizational level.
13
Define clear roles. Demonstrate how each person’s contribution furthers the
group goal—everyone is responsible for a special piece of the puzzle.
Situate group members in close proximity to each other. This builds
familiarity.
Give frequent praise. Both individuals and groups benefit from praise. Also
encourage them to praise each other. This builds individual self-confidence,
reaffirms positive behavior, and creates an overall positive atmosphere.
Treat all members with dignity and respect. This demonstrates that there are
no favorites and everyone is valued.
Celebrate differences. This highlights each individual’s contribution while also
making diversity a norm.
Establish common rituals. Thursday morning coffee, monthly potlucks—these
reaffirm group identity and create shared experiences.
Can a Group Have Too Much Cohesion?
Keep in mind that groups can have too much cohesion. Because members can
come to value belonging over all else, an internal pressure to conform may
arise, causing some members to modify their behavior to adhere to group
norms. Members may become conflict avoidant, focusing more on trying to
please each other so as not to be ostracized. In some cases, members might
censor themselves to maintain the party line. As such, there is a superficial
sense of harmony and less diversity of thought. Having less tolerance for
deviants, who threaten the group’s static identity, cohesive groups will often
excommunicate members who dare to disagree. Members attempting to make
a change may even be criticized or undermined by other members, who
perceive this as a threat to the status quo. The painful possibility of being
marginalized can keep many members in line with the majority.
14
The more strongly members identify with the group, the easier it is to see
outsiders as inferior, or enemies in extreme cases, which can lead to increased
insularity. This form of prejudice can have a downward spiral effect. Not only
is the group not getting corrective feedback from within its own confines, it is
also closing itself off from input and a cross-fertilization of ideas from the
outside. In such an environment, groups can easily adopt extreme ideas that
will not be challenged. Denial increases as problems are ignored and failures
are blamed on external factors. With limited, often biased, information and no
internal or external opposition, groups like these can make disastrous
decisions. Groupthink is a group pressure phenomenon that increases the risk
of the group making flawed decisions by allowing reductions in mental
efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment. Groupthink is most common in
highly cohesive groups. [5]
Cohesive groups can go awry in much milder ways. For example, group
members can value their social interactions so much that they have fun
together but spend little time on accomplishing their assigned task. Or a
group’s goal may begin to diverge from the larger organization’s goal and
those trying to uphold the organization’s goal may be ostracized (e.g., teasing
the class “brain” for doing well in school).
In addition, research shows that cohesion leads to acceptance of group
norms. [6]
Groups with high task commitment do well, but imagine a group
where the norms are to work as little as possible? As you might imagine, these
groups get little accomplished and can actually work together against the
organization’s goals.
Figure 9.4
15
Groups with high cohesion and high task commitment tend to be the most
effective.
Social Loafing
Social loafing refers to the tendency of individuals to put in less effort when
working in a group context. This phenomenon, also known as the Ringelmann
effect, was first noted by French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann in
1913. In one study, he had people pull on a rope individually and in groups. He
found that as the number of people pulling increased, the group’s total pulling
force was less than the individual efforts had been when measured alone. [7]
Why do people work less hard when they are working with other people?
Observations show that as the size of the group grows, this effect becomes
larger as well. [8]
The social loafing tendency is less a matter of being lazy and
more a matter of perceiving that one will receive neither one’s fair share of
rewards if the group is successful nor blame if the group fails. Rationales for
this behavior include, “My own effort will have little effect on the outcome,”
“Others aren’t pulling their weight, so why should I?” or “I don’t have much to
contribute, but no one will notice anyway.” This is a consistent effect across a
great number of group tasks and countries. [9]
Research also shows that
16
perceptions of fairness are related to less social loafing. [10]
Therefore, teams
that are deemed as more fair should also see less social loafing.
OB Toolbox: Tips for Preventing Social Loafing in Your Group When designing a group project, here are some considerations to keep in
mind:
Carefully choose the number of individuals you need to get the task done. The
likelihood of social loafing increases as group size increases (especially if the
group consists of 10 or more people), because it is easier for people to feel
unneeded or inadequate, and it is easier for them to “hide” in a larger group.
Clearly define each member’s tasks in front of the entire group. If you assign
a task to the entire group, social loafing is more likely. For example, instead of
stating, “By Monday, let’s find several articles on the topic of stress,” you can
set the goal of “By Monday, each of us will be responsible for finding five
articles on the topic of stress.” When individuals have specific goals, they
become more accountable for their performance.
Design and communicate to the entire group a system for evaluating each
person’s contribution. You may have a midterm feedback session in which
each member gives feedback to every other member. This would increase the
sense of accountability individuals have. You may even want to discuss the
principle of social loafing in order to discourage it.
Build a cohesive group. When group members develop strong relational
bonds, they are more committed to each other and the success of the group,
and they are therefore more likely to pull their own weight.
Assign tasks that are highly engaging and inherently rewarding. Design
challenging, unique, and varied activities that will have a significant impact on
the individuals themselves, the organization, or the external environment. For
17
example, one group member may be responsible for crafting a new incentive-
pay system through which employees can direct some of their bonus to their
favorite nonprofits.
Make sure individuals feel that they are needed. If the group ignores a
member’s contributions because these contributions do not meet the group’s
performance standards, members will feel discouraged and are unlikely to
contribute in the future. Make sure that everyone feels included and needed
by the group.
Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy refers to a group’s perception of its ability to successfully
perform well. [11]
Collective efficacy is influenced by a number of factors,
including watching others (“that group did it and we’re better than them”),
verbal persuasion (“we can do this”), and how a person feels (“this is a good
group”). Research shows that a group’s collective efficacy is related to its
performance. [12]
In addition, this relationship is higher when task
interdependence (the degree an individual’s task is linked to someone else’s
work) is high rather than low.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Groups may be either formal or informal. Groups go through developmental stages
much like individuals do. The forming-storming-norming-performing-adjourning
model is useful in prescribing stages that groups should pay attention to as they
develop. The punctuated-equilibrium model of group development argues that
groups often move forward during bursts of change after long periods without
change. Groups that are similar, stable, small, supportive, and satisfied tend to be
more cohesive than groups that are not. Cohesion can help support group
performance if the group values task completion. Too much cohesion can also be a
18
concern for groups. Social loafing increases as groups become larger. When
collective efficacy is high, groups tend to perform better.
E X E R C I S E S
1. If you believe the punctuated-equilibrium model is true about groups, how can you
use this knowledge to help your own group?
2. Think about the most cohesive group you have ever been in. How did it compare in
terms of similarity, stability, size, support, and satisfaction?
3. Why do you think social loafing occurs within groups?
4. What can be done to combat social loafing?
5. Have you seen instances of collective efficacy helping or hurting a team? Please
explain your answer.
9.2 Understanding Team Design Characteristics
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Understand the difference between groups and teams.
2. Understand the factors leading to the rise in the use of teams.
3. Understand how tasks and roles affect teams.
4. Identify different types of teams.
5. Identify team design considerations.
Effective teams give companies a significant competitive advantage. In a high-
functioning team, the sum is truly greater than the parts. Team members not
only benefit from each other’s diverse experiences and perspectives but also
stimulate each other’s creativity. Plus, for many people, working in a team can
be more fun than working alone.
19
Differences Between Groups and Teams
Organizations consist of groups of people. What exactly is the difference
between a group and a team? A group is a collection of individuals. Within an
organization, groups might consist of project-related groups such as a product
group or division, or they can encompass an entire store or branch of a
company. The performance of a group consists of the inputs of the group
minus any process losses, such as the quality of a product, ramp-up time to
production, or the sales for a given month. Process loss is any aspect of group
interaction that inhibits group functioning.
Why do we say group instead of team? A collection of people is not a team,
though they may learn to function in that way. A team is a cohesive coalition of
people working together to achieve mutual goals. Being on a team does not
equate to a total suppression of personal agendas, but it does require a
commitment to the vision and involves each individual working toward
accomplishing the team's objective. Teams differ from other types of groups in
that members are focused on a joint goal or product, such as a presentation,
discussing a topic, writing a report, creating a new design or prototype, or
winning a team Olympic medal. Moreover, teams also tend to be defined by
their relatively smaller size. For example, according to one definition, “A team
is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to
a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are
mutually accountable.” [1]
The purpose of assembling a team is to accomplish larger, more complex goals
than what would be possible for an individual working alone or even the
simple sum of several individuals’ working independently. Teamwork is also
needed in cases in which multiple skills are tapped or where buy-in is required
from several individuals. Teams can, but do not always, provide improved
20
performance. Working together to further a team agenda seems to increase
mutual cooperation between what are often competing factions. The aim and
purpose of a team is to perform, get results, and achieve victory in the
workplace. The best managers are those who can gather together a group of
individuals and mold them into an effective team.
The key properties of a true team include collaborative action in which, along
with a common goal, teams have collaborative tasks. Conversely, in a group,
individuals are responsible only for their own area. They also share the
rewards of strong team performance with their compensation based on shared
outcomes. Compensation of individuals must be based primarily on a shared
outcome, not individual performance. Members are also willing to sacrifice for
the common good, in which individuals give up scarce resources for the
common good instead of competing for those resources. For example, in
soccer and basketball teams, the individuals actively help each other, forgo
their own chance to score by passing the ball, and win or lose collectively as a
team.
The early 1990s saw a dramatic rise in the use of teams within organizations,
along with dramatic results such as the Miller Brewing Company increasing
productivity 30% in the plants that used self-directed teams compared to
those that used the traditional organization. This same method allowed Texas
Instruments Inc. in Malaysia to reduce defects from 100 parts per million to
20 parts per million. In addition, Westinghouse Electric Corporation reduced
its cycle time from 12 to 2 weeks and Harris Corporation was able to achieve
an 18% reduction in costs. [2]
The team method has served countless
companies over the years through both quantifiable improvements and more
subtle individual worker-related benefits.
21
Companies like Schneider Electric, maker of Square D circuit breakers,
switched to self-directed teams and found that overtime on machines such as
the punch-press dropped 70%. Productivity increased because the set-up
operators themselves were able to manipulate the work in much more
effective ways than a supervisor could dictate. [3]
In 2001, clothing retailer
Chico’s Retailer Services Inc. was looking to grow its business. The company
hired Scott Edmonds as president, and 2 years later revenues had almost
doubled from $378 million to $760 million. By 2006, revenues were $1.6
billion and Chico’s had 9 years of double-digit same-store sales growth. What
did Edmonds do to get these results? He created a horizontal organization
with high-performance teams that were empowered with decision-making
ability and accountability for results.
The use of teams also began to increase because advances in technology have
resulted in more complex systems that require contributions from multiple
people across the organization. Overall, team-based organizations have more
motivation and involvement, and teams can often accomplish more than
individuals. [4]
It is no wonder organizations are relying on teams more and
more.
It is important to keep in mind that teams are not a cure-all for organizations.
To determine whether a team is needed, organizations should consider
whether a variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed, whether ideas
and feedback are needed from different groups within the organization, how
interdependent the tasks are, if wide cooperation is needed to get things done,
and whether the organization would benefit from shared goals. [5]
If the answer
to these questions is yes, then a team or teams might make sense. For
example, research shows that the more team members perceive that outcomes
are interdependent, the better they share information and the better they
22
perform. [6]
Let’s take a closer look at the different team characteristics, types
of teams companies use, and how to design effective teams.
Team Tasks
Teams differ in terms of the tasks they are trying to accomplish. Richard
Hackman identified three major classes of tasks: production tasks, idea-
generation tasks, and problem-solving tasks. [7]
Production tasks include
actually making something, such as a building, product, or a marketing
plan. Idea-generation tasks deal with creative tasks, such as brainstorming a
new direction or creating a new process. Problem-solving tasks refer to
coming up with plans for actions and making decisions. For example, a team
may be charged with coming up with a new marketing slogan, which is an
idea-generation task, while another team might be asked to manage an entire
line of products, including making decisions about products to produce,
managing the production of the product lines, marketing them, and staffing
their division. The second team has all three types of tasks to accomplish at
different points in time.
Another key to understanding how tasks are related to teams is to understand
their level of task interdependence. Task interdependence refers to the degree
that team members are dependent on one another to get information, support,
or materials from other team members to be effective. Research shows that
self-managing teams are most effective when their tasks are highly
interdependent. [8]
There are three types of task interdependence.
Pooled interdependence exists when team members may work independently
and simply combine their efforts to create the team’s output. For example,
when students meet to divide the section of a research paper and one person
simply puts all the sections together to create one paper, the team is using the
23
pooled interdependence model. However, they might decide that it makes
more sense to start with one person writing the introduction of their research
paper, then the second person reads what was written by the first person and,
drawing from this section, writes about the findings within the paper. Using
the findings section, the third person writes the conclusions. If one person’s
output becomes another person’s input, the team would be experiencing
sequential interdependence. And finally, if the student team decided that in
order to create a top-notch research paper they should work together on each
phase of the research paper so that their best ideas would be captured at each
stage, they would be undertaking reciprocal interdependence. Another
important type of interdependence that is not specific to the task itself
is outcome interdependence, in which the rewards that an individual receives
depend on the performance of others.
Team Roles
Robert Sutton points out that the success of U.S. Airways Flight 1549 to land
with no fatalities when it crashed into the Hudson River in New York City is a
good example of an effective work team. [9]
For example, reports show that
Captain Chesley Sullenberger took over flying from copilot Jeff Skiles, who
had handled the takeoff, but had less experience in the Airbus. [10]
This is
consistent with the research findings that effective teams divide up tasks so
the best people are in the best positions.
Studies show that individuals who are more aware of team roles and the
behavior required for each role perform better than individuals who do not.
This fact remains true for both student project teams as well as work teams,
even after accounting for intelligence and personality. [11]
Early research found
that teams tend to have two categories of roles consisting of those related to
the tasks at hand and those related to the team’s functioning. For example,
24
teams that focus only on production at all costs may be successful in the short
run, but if they pay no attention to how team members feel about working 70
hours a week, they are likely to experience high turnover.
Based on decades of research on teams, 10 key roles have been
identified. [12]
Team leadership is effective when leaders are able to adapt the
roles they are contributing or asking others to contribute to fit what the team
needs given its stage and the tasks at hand. [13]
Ineffective leaders might always
engage in the same task role behaviors, when what they really need is to focus
on social roles, put disagreements aside, and get back to work. While these
behaviors can be effective from time to time, if the team doesn’t modify its role
behaviors as things change, they most likely will not be effective.
Figure 9.7
Teams are based on many roles being carried out, as summarized by the Team Role
Typology. These 10 roles include task roles (green), social roles (yellow), and
boundary-spanning roles (orange).
25
Source: Mumford, T. V., Van Iddekinge, C., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A.
(2008). The team role test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge
situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 250–267; Mumford, T.
V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2006). Situational judgments in work teams: A
team role typology. In J. A. Weekley and R. E. Ployhart (Eds.),Situational judgment
tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 319–344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Task Roles
Five roles make up the task portion of the typology. The contractor role
includes behaviors that serve to organize the team’s work, including creating
team timelines, production schedules, and task sequencing. The creator role
deals more with changes in the team’s task process structure. For example,
reframing the team goals and looking at the context of goals would fall under
this role. The contributor role is important, because it brings information and
expertise to the team. This role is characterized by sharing knowledge and
training with those who have less expertise to strengthen the team. Research
shows that teams with highly intelligent members and evenly distributed
workloads are more effective than those with uneven workloads. [14]
The
completer role is also important, as it transforms ideas into action. Behaviors
associated with this role include following up on tasks, such as gathering
needed background information or summarizing the team’s ideas into reports.
Finally, the critic role includes “devil’s advocate” behaviors that go against the
assumptions being made by the team.
Social Roles
Social roles serve to keep the team operating effectively. When the social roles
are filled, team members feel more cohesive, and the group is less prone to
suffer process losses or biases such as social loafing, groupthink, or a lack of
participation from all members. Three roles fall under the umbrella of social
26
roles. The cooperator role includes supporting those with expertise toward the
team’s goals. This is a proactive role. The communicator role includes
behaviors that are targeted at collaboration, such as practicing good listening
skills and appropriately using humor to diffuse tense situations. Having a
good communicator helps the team to feel more open to sharing ideas. The
calibrator role is an important one that serves to keep the team on track in
terms of suggesting any needed changes to the team’s process. This role
includes initiating discussions about potential team problems such as power
struggles or other tensions. Similarly, this role may involve settling
disagreements or pointing out what is working and what is not in terms of
team process.
Boundary-Spanning Roles
The final two goals are related to activities outside the team that help to
connect the team to the larger organization. [15]
Teams that engage in a greater
level of boundary-spanning behaviors increase their team
effectiveness. [16]
The consul role includes gathering information from the
larger organization and informing those within the organization about team
activities, goals, and successes. Often the consul role is filled by team
managers or leaders. The coordinator role includes interfacing with others
within the organization so that the team’s efforts are in line with other
individuals and teams within the organization.
Types of Teams
There are several types of temporary teams. In fact, one-third of all teams in
the United States are temporary in nature. [17]
An example of a temporary team
is a task force that is asked to address a specific issue or problem until it is
resolved. Other teams may be temporary or ongoing, such as product
development teams. In addition, matrix organizations have cross-
27
functional teams in which individuals from different parts of the organization
staff the team, which may be temporary or long-standing in nature.
Virtual teams are teams in which members are not located in the same
physical place. They may be in different cities, states, or even different
countries. Some virtual teams are formed by necessity, such as to take
advantage of lower labor costs in different countries with upwards of 8.4
million individuals working virtually in at least one team. [18]
Often, virtual
teams are formed to take advantage of distributed expertise or time—the
needed experts may be living in different cities. A company that sells products
around the world, for example, may need technologists who can solve
customer problems at any hour of the day or night. It may be difficult to find
the caliber of people needed who would be willing to work at 2:00 a.m. on a
Saturday, for example. So companies organize virtual technical support teams.
BakBone Software Inc., for example, has a 13-member technical support team.
All members have degrees in computer science and are divided among offices
in California, Maryland, England, and Tokyo. BakBone believes it has been
able to hire stronger candidates by drawing from a diverse talent pool and
hiring in different geographic regions rather than being limited to one region
or time zone. [19]
Despite potential benefits, virtual teams present special management
challenges. Managers often think that they have to see team members working
in order to believe that work is being done. Because this kind of oversight is
impossible in virtual team situations, it is important to devise evaluation
schemes that focus on deliverables. Are team members delivering what they
said they would? In self-managed teams, are team members producing the
results the team decided to measure itself on?
28
Another special challenge of virtual teams is building trust. Will team
members deliver results just as they would in face-to-face teams? Can
members trust each other to do what they said they would do? Companies
often invest in bringing a virtual team together at least once so members can
get to know each other and build trust. [20]
In manager-led virtual teams,
managers should be held accountable for their team’s results and evaluated on
their ability as a team leader.
Finally, communication is especially important in virtual teams, be it through
e-mail, phone calls, conference calls, or project management tools that help
organize work. If individuals in a virtual team are not fully engaged and tend
to avoid conflict, team performance can suffer. [21]
A wiki is an Internet-based
method for many people to collaborate and contribute to a document or
discussion. Essentially, the document remains available for team members to
access and amend at any time. The most famous example is Wikipedia, which
is gaining traction as a way to structure project work globally and get
information into the hands of those that need it. Empowered organizations
put information into everyone’s hands. [22]
Research shows that empowered
teams are more effective than those that are not empowered. [23]
Top management teams are appointed by the chief executive officer (CEO)
and, ideally, reflect the skills and areas that the CEO considers vital for the
company. There are no formal rules about top management team design or
structure. The top team often includes representatives from functional areas,
such as finance, human resources, and marketing, or key geographic areas,
such as Europe, Asia, and North America. Depending on the company, other
areas may be represented, such as legal counsel or the company’s chief
technologist. Typical top management team member titles include chief
operating officer (COO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief marketing officer
29
(CMO), or chief technology officer (CTO). Because CEOs spend an increasing
amount of time outside their companies (e.g., with suppliers, customers, and
regulators), the role of the COO has taken on a much higher level of internal
operating responsibilities. In most American companies, the CEO also serves
as chairman of the board and can have the additional title of president.
Companies have top teams to help set the company’s vision and strategic
direction. Top teams make decisions on new markets, expansions,
acquisitions, or divestitures. The top team is also important for its symbolic
role: How the top team behaves dictates the organization’s culture and
priorities by allocating resources and by modeling behaviors that will likely be
emulated lower down in the organization. Importantly, the top team is most
effective when team composition is diverse—functionally and
demographically—and when it can truly operate as a team, not just as
a group of individual executives. [24]
Chapter 1 "Organizational Behavior" began with the quote that the people
make the place, and this holds especially true for members of the top
management team. In a study of 15 firms that demonstrated excellence,
defined as sustained performance over a 15-year period, leadership researcher
Jim Collins noted that those firms attended to people first and strategy
second. “They got the right people on the bus, moved the wrong people off the
bus, ushered the right people to the right seats—then they figured out where to
drive it.” [25]
The best teams plan for turnover. Succession planning is the
process of identifying future members of the top management team. Effective
succession planning allows the best top teams to achieve high performance
today and create a legacy of high performance for the future.
30
Team Leadership and Autonomy
Teams also vary in terms of how they are led. Traditional manager-
led teams are teams in which the manager serves as the team leader. The
manager assigns work to other team members. These types of teams are the
most natural to form, with managers having the power to hire and fire team
members and being held accountable for the team’s results.
Self-managed teams are a new form of team that rose in popularity with the
Total Quality Movement in the 1980s. Unlike manager-led teams, these teams
manage themselves and do not report directly to a supervisor. Instead, team
members select their own leader, and they may even take turns in the
leadership role. Self-managed teams also have the power to select new team
members. As a whole, the team shares responsibility for a significant task,
such as assembly of an entire car. The task is ongoing rather than a temporary
task such as a charity fund drive for a given year.
Organizations began to use self-managed teams as a way to reduce hierarchy
by allowing team members to complete tasks and solve problems on their own.
The benefits of self-managed teams extend much further. Research has shown
that employees in self-managed teams have higher job satisfaction, increased
self-esteem, and grow more on the job. The benefits to the organization
include increased productivity, increased flexibility, and lower turnover. Self-
managed teams can be found at all levels of the organization, and they bring
particular benefits to lower level employees by giving them a sense of
ownership of their jobs that they may not otherwise have. The increased
satisfaction can also reduce absenteeism, because employees do not want to
let their team members down.
31
Typical team goals are improving quality, reducing costs, and meeting
deadlines. Teams also have a “stretch” goal—a goal that is difficult to reach but
important to the business unit. Many teams also have special project goals.
Texas Instruments (TI), a company that makes semiconductors, used self-
directed teams to make improvements in work processes. [26]
Teams were
allowed to set their own goals in conjunction with managers and other teams.
TI also added an individual component to the typical team compensation
system. This individual component rewarded team members for learning new
skills that added to their knowledge. These “knowledge blocks” include topics
such as leadership, administration, and problem solving. The team decides
what additional skills people might need to help the team meet its objectives.
Team members would then take classes and/or otherwise demonstrate their
proficiency in that new skill on the job in order to get certification for mastery
of the skill. Individuals could then be evaluated based on their contribution to
the team and how they are building skills to support the team.
Self-managed teams are empowered teams, which means that they have the
responsibility as well as the authority to achieve their goals. Team members
have the power to control tasks and processes and to make decisions.
Research shows that self-managed teams may be at a higher risk of suffering
from negative outcomes due to conflict, so it is important that they are
supported with training to help them deal with conflict effectively. [27]
Self-
managed teams may still have a leader who helps them coordinate with the
larger organization. [28]
For a product team composed of engineering,
production, and marketing employees, being empowered means that the team
can decide everything about a product’s appearance, production, and cost
without having to get permission or sign-off from higher management. As a
result, empowered teams can more effectively meet tighter deadlines. At AT&T
Inc., for example, the model-4200 phone team cut development time in half
32
while lowering costs and improving quality by using the empowered team
approach. [29]
A special form of self-managed teams are self-directed teams,
which also determine who will lead them with no external oversight.
Designing Effective Teams
Designing an effective team means making decisions about team composition
(who should be on the team), team size (the optimal number of people on the
team), and team diversity (should team members be of similar background,
such as all engineers, or of different backgrounds). Answering these questions
will depend, to a large extent, on the type of task that the team will be
performing. Teams can be charged with a variety of tasks, from problem
solving to generating creative and innovative ideas to managing the daily
operations of a manufacturing plant.
Who Are the Best Individuals for the Team?
A key consideration when forming a team is to ensure that all the team
members are qualified for the roles they will fill for the team. This process
often entails understanding the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of team
members as well as the personality traits needed before starting the selection
process. [30]
When talking to potential team members, be sure to communicate
the job requirements and norms of the team. To the degree that this is not
possible, such as when already existing groups are utilized, think of ways to
train the team members as much as possible to help ensure success. In
addition to task knowledge, research has shown that individuals who
understand the concepts covered in this chapter and in this book, such as
conflict resolution, motivation, planning, and leadership, actually perform
better on their jobs. This finding holds for a variety of jobs, including being an
officer in the U.S. Air Force, an employee at a pulp mill, or a team member at a
box manufacturing plant. [31]
33
How Large Should My Team Be?
Interestingly, research has shown that regardless of team size, the most active
team member speaks 43% of the time. The difference is that the team member
who participates the least in a 3-person team is still active 23% of the time
versus only 3% in a 10-person team. [32]
When deciding team size, a good rule
of thumb is a size of two to twenty members. Research shows that groups with
more than 20 members have less cooperation. [33]
The majority of teams have
10 members or less, because the larger the team, the harder it is to coordinate
and interact as a team. With fewer individuals, team members are more able
to work through differences and agree on a common plan of action. They have
a clearer understanding of others’ roles and greater accountability to fulfill
their roles (remember social loafing?). Some tasks, however, require larger
team sizes because of the need for diverse skills or because of the complexity
of the task. In those cases, the best solution is to create subteams in which one
member from each subteam is a member of a larger coordinating team. The
relationship between team size and performance seems to greatly depend on
the level of task interdependence, with some studies finding larger teams
outproducing smaller teams and other studies finding just the
opposite. [34]
The bottom line is that team size should be matched to the goals
of the team.
How Diverse Should My Team Be?
Team composition and team diversity often go hand in hand. Teams whose
members have complementary skills are often more successful, because
members can see each other’s blind spots. One team member’s strengths can
compensate for another’s weaknesses. [35]
For example, consider the challenge
that companies face when trying to forecast future sales of a given product.
Workers who are educated as forecasters have the analytic skills needed for
34
forecasting, but these workers often lack critical information about customers.
Salespeople, in contrast, regularly communicate with customers, which means
they’re in the know about upcoming customer decisions. But salespeople often
lack the analytic skills, discipline, or desire to enter this knowledge into
spreadsheets and software that will help a company forecast future sales.
Putting forecasters and salespeople together on a team tasked with
determining the most accurate product forecast each quarter makes the best
use of each member’s skills and expertise.
Diversity in team composition can help teams come up with more creative and
effective solutions. Research shows that teams that believe in the value of
diversity performed better than teams that do not. [36]
The more diverse a team
is in terms of expertise, gender, age, and background, the more ability the
group has to avoid the problems of groupthink. [37]
For example, different
educational levels for team members were related to more creativity in R&D
teams and faster time to market for new products. [38]
Members will be more
inclined to make different kinds of mistakes, which means that they’ll be able
to catch and correct those mistakes.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Groups and teams are not the same thing. Organizations have moved toward the
extensive use of teams within organizations. The tasks a team is charged with
accomplishing affect how they perform. In general, task interdependence works well
for self-managing teams. Team roles consist of task, social, and boundary-spanning
roles. Different types of teams include task forces, product development teams,
cross-functional teams, and top management teams. Team leadership and autonomy
varies, depending on whether the team is traditionally managed, self-managed, or
self-directed. Teams are most effective when they comprise members with the right
35
skills for the tasks at hand, are not too large, and contain diversity across team
members.
E X E R C I S E S
1. Think of the last team you were in. Did the task you were asked to do affect the
team? Why or why not?
2. Which of the 10 work roles do you normally take in a team? How difficult or easy do
you think it would be for you to take on a different role?
3. Have you ever worked in a virtual team? If so, what were the challenges and
advantages of working virtually?
4. How large do you think teams should be and why?
9.3 Management of Teams
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Understand how to create team norms, roles, and expectations.
2. Identify keys to running effective team meetings.
Establishing Team Norms
Team Norms
Norms are shared expectations about how things operate within a group or
team. Just as new employees learn to understand and share the assumptions,
norms, and values that are part of an organization’s culture, they also must
learn the norms of their immediate team. This understanding helps teams be
more cohesive and perform better. Norms are a powerful way of ensuring
coordination within a team. For example, is it acceptable to be late to
36
meetings? How prepared are you supposed to be at the meetings? Is it
acceptable to criticize someone else’s work? These norms are shaped early
during the life of a team and affect whether the team is productive, cohesive,
and successful.
Square Wheels Exercise and Group Discussion Sometimes it can be challenging to start a conversation around team ground
rules and performance. The following exercise can be used to get individuals
talking about what works and what doesn’t work in teams they’ve worked in
and how your team can be designed most effectively.
Figure 9.10
Used with permission. © Performance Management Company, 1992–2004.
Square Wheels® is a registered servicemark of PMC.
What is happening in this picture represents how many organizations seem to
operate. On a piece of paper have everyone in your team write on this form
and identify as many of the key issues and opportunities for improvement as
you can. Following this, have a conversation around what this illustration
might mean for your own team.
Team Contracts
Scientific research, as well as experience working with thousands of teams,
show that teams that are able to articulate and agree on established ground
rules, goals, and roles and develop a team contract around these standards are
better equipped to face challenges that may arise within the team. [1]
Having a
team contract does not necessarily mean that the team will be successful, but
it can serve as a road map when the team veers off course. The following
questions can help to create a meaningful team contract:
37
Team Values and Goals
o What are our shared team values?
o What is our team goal?
Team Roles and Leadership
o Who does what within this team? (Who takes notes at the
meeting? Who sets the agenda? Who assigns tasks? Who runs the
meetings?)
o Does the team have a formal leader?
o If so, what are his or her roles?
Team Decision Making
o How are minor decisions made?
o How are major decisions made?
Team Communication
o Who do you contact if you cannot make a meeting?
o Who communicates with whom?
o How often will the team meet?
Team Performance
o What constitutes good team performance?
o What if a team member tries hard but does not seem to be
producing quality work?
o How will poor attendance/work quality be dealt with?
Team Meetings
Anyone who has been involved in a team knows it involves team meetings.
While few individuals relish the idea of team meetings, they serve an
38
important function in terms of information sharing and decision making. They
also serve an important social function and can help to build team cohesion
and a task function in terms of coordination. Unfortunately, we’ve all attended
meetings that were a waste of time and little happened that couldn’t have been
accomplished by reading an e-mail in 5 minutes. To run effective meetings, it
helps to think of meetings in terms of three sequential steps. [2]
Before the Meeting
Much of the effectiveness of a meeting is determined before the team gathers.
There are three key things you can do to ensure the team members get the
most out of their meeting.
Is a meeting needed? Leaders should do a number of things prior to the
meeting to help make it effective. The first thing is to be sure a meeting is even
needed. If the meeting is primarily informational in nature, ask yourself if it is
imperative that the group fully understands the information and if future
decisions will be built upon this information. If so, a meeting may be needed.
If not, perhaps simply communicating with everyone in a written format will
save valuable time. Similarly, decision-making meetings make the most sense
when the problem is complex and important, there are questions of fairness to
be resolved, and commitment is needed moving forward.
Create and distribute an agenda. An agenda is important in helping to inform
those invited about the purpose of the meeting. It also helps organize the flow
of the meeting and keep the team on track.
Send a reminder prior to the meeting. Reminding everyone of the purpose,
time, and location of the meeting helps everyone prepare themselves. Anyone
who has attended a team meeting only to find there is no reason to meet
39
because members haven’t completed their agreed-upon tasks knows that, as a
result, team performance or morale can be negatively impacted. Follow up to
make sure everyone is prepared. As a team member, inform others
immediately if you will not be ready with your tasks so that they can
determine whether the meeting should be postponed.
During the Meeting
During the meeting there are several things you can do to make sure the team
starts and keeps on track.
Start the meeting on time. Waiting for members who are running late only
punishes those who are on time and reinforces the idea that it’s OK to be late.
Starting the meeting promptly sends an important signal that you are
respectful of everyone’s time.
Follow the meeting agenda. Veering off agenda communicates to members
that the agenda is not important. It also makes it difficult for others to keep
track of where you are in the meeting.
Manage group dynamics for full participation. As you’ve seen in this chapter,
a number of group dynamics can limit a team’s functioning. Be on the lookout
for full participation and engagement from all team members, as well as any
potential problems such as social loafing, group conflict, or groupthink.
Summarize the meeting with action items. Be sure to clarify team member
roles moving forward. If individuals’ tasks are not clear, chances are that role
confusion will arise later. There should be clear notes from the meeting
regarding who is responsible for each action item and the time frames
associated with next steps.
40
End the meeting on time. This is vitality important, as it shows that you
respect everyone’s time and are organized. If another meeting is needed to
follow up, schedule it later, but don’t let the meeting run over.
After the Meeting
Follow up on action items. During the meeting, participants probably
generated several action items. It is likely that you’ll need to follow up on the
action items of others.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Much like group development, team socialization takes place over the life of the
team. The stages move from evaluation to commitment to role transition. Team
norms are important for the team process and help to establish who is doing what
for the team and how the team will function. Creating a team contract helps with
this process. Keys to address in a team contract are team values and goals, team
roles and leadership, team decision making, team communication expectations, and
how team performance is characterized. Team meetings can help a team coordinate
and share information. Effective meetings include preparation, management during
the meeting, and follow-up on action items generated in the meeting.
E X E R C I S E S
1. Have the norms for most of the teams you have belonged to been formal or
informal? How do you think that has affected these teams?
2. Have you ever been involved in creating a team contract? Explain how you think that
may have influenced how the team functioned.
3. Should the person requesting a meeting always prepare a meeting agenda? Why or
why not?
4. Do you think conducting team meetings standing up is a good idea? Why or why
not?
41
9.4 Barriers to Effective Teams
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Recognize common barriers to effective teams.
2. Learn how to address some of the most common barriers and maintain group
effectiveness.
Problems can arise in any team that will hurt the team’s effectiveness. Here
are some common problems faced by teams and how to deal with them.
Common Problems Faced by Teams
Challenges of Knowing Where to Begin
At the start of a project, team members may be at a loss as to how to begin.
Also, they may have reached the end of a task but are unable to move on to the
next step or put the task to rest. Floundering often results from a lack of clear
goals, so the remedy is to go back to the team’s mission or plan and make sure
that it is clear to everyone. Team leaders can help move the team past
floundering by asking, “What is holding us up? Do we need more data? Do we
need assurances or support? Does anyone feel that we’ve missed something
important?”
Dominating Team Members
Some team members may have a dominating personality that encroaches on
the participation or air time of others. This overbearing behavior may hurt the
team morale or the momentum of the team. A good way to overcome this
barrier is to design a team evaluation to include a “balance of participation” in
42
meetings. Knowing that fair and equitable participation by all will affect the
team’s performance evaluation will help team members limit domination by
one member and encourage participation from all members, even shy or
reluctant ones. Team members can say, “We’ve heard from Mary on this issue,
so let’s hear from others about their ideas.”
Poor Performance of Team Members
Research shows that teams deal with poor performers in different ways,
depending on members’ perceptions of the reasons for poor performance. [1]
In
situations in which the poor performer is perceived as lacking in ability, teams
are more likely to train the member. When members perceive the individual as
simply being low on motivation, they are more likely to try to motivate or
reject the poor performer. Keep in mind that justice is an important part of
keeping individuals working hard for the team. [2]
Be sure that poor
performers are dealt with in a way that is deemed fair by all the team
members.
Poorly Managed Team Conflict
Disagreements among team members are normal and should be expected.
Healthy teams raise issues and discuss differing points of view, because that
will ultimately help the team reach stronger, more well-reasoned decisions.
Unfortunately, sometimes disagreements arise owing to personality issues or
feuds that predated a team’s formation. Ideally, teams should be designed to
avoid bringing adversaries together on the same team. If that is not possible,
the next best solution is to have adversaries discuss their issues privately, so
the team’s progress is not disrupted. The team leader or other team member
can offer to facilitate the discussion. One way to make a discussion between
conflicting parties meaningful is to form a behavioral contract between the
43
two parties. That is, if one party agrees to do X, then the other will agree to do
Y. [3]
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Barriers to effective teams include the challenges of knowing where to begin,
dominating team members, the poor performance of team members, and poorly
managed team conflict.
E X E R C I S E S
1. How could some of the things discussed in “Understanding Team Design
Characteristics” help to avoid the common barriers to team effectiveness?
2. Have you ever been involved in a team where dominating team members hurt the
team’s performance? Share what happened and how the team dealt with this.
9.5 The Role of Ethics and National Culture
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Consider the role of ethics and teams.
2. Consider teams around the globe.
Ethics and Teams
The use of teams, especially self-managing teams, has been seen as a way to
overcome the negatives of bureaucracy and hierarchical control. Giving teams
the authority and responsibility to make their own decisions seems to
empower individuals and the team alike by distributing power more equitably.
Interestingly, research by James Barker shows that sometimes replacing a
hierarchy with self-managing teams can actually increase control over
44
individual workers and constrain members more powerfully than a
hierarchical system. [1]
Studying a small manufacturing company that switched
to self-managing teams, Barker interviewed team members and found an
unexpected result: Team members felt more closely watched under self-
managing teams than under the old system. Ronald, a technical worker, said,
“I don't have to sit there and look for the boss to be around; and if the boss is
not around, I can sit there and talk to my neighbor or do what I want. Now the
whole team is around me and the whole team is observing what I'm doing.”
Ronald said that while his old supervisor might tolerate someone coming in a
few minutes late, his team had adopted a “no tolerance” policy on tardiness,
and members carefully monitored their own behaviors.
Team pressure can harm a company as well. Consider a sales team whose
motto of “sales above all” hurts the ability of the company to gain loyal
customers. [2]
The sales team feels pressure to lie to customers to make sales.
Their misrepresentations and unethical behavior gets them the quick sale but
curtails their ability to get future sales from repeat customers.
Teams Around the Globe
People from different cultures often have different beliefs, norms, and ways of
viewing the world. These kinds of country-by-country differences have been
studied by the GLOBE Project, in which 170 researchers collected and
analyzed data on cultural values, practices, and leadership attributes from
over 17,000 managers in 62 societal cultures. [3]
GLOBE identified nine
dimensions of culture. One of the identified dimensions is a measure
called collectivism. Collectivism focuses on the degree to which the society
reinforces collective over individual achievement. Collectivist societies value
interpersonal relationships over individual achievement. Societies that rank
high on collectivism show more close ties between individuals. The United
45
States and Australia rank low on the collectivism dimension, whereas
countries such as Mexico and Taiwan rank high on that dimension. High
collectivism manifests itself in close, long-term commitment to the member
group. In a collectivist culture, loyalty is paramount and overrides most other
societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships in which
everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group.
Harrison, McKinnon, Wu, and Chow explored the cultural factors that may
influence how well employees adapt to fluid work groups. [4]
The researchers
studied groups in Taiwan and Australia. Taiwan ranks high on collectivism,
while Australia ranks low. The results: Australian managers reported that
employees adapted more readily to working in different teams, working under
different leaders, and taking on leadership of project teams than the middle
managers in Taiwan reported. The two samples were matched in terms of the
functional background of the managers, size and industries of the firms, and
local firms. These additional controls provided greater confidence in
attributing the observed differences to cultural values.
In other research, researchers analyzed the evaluation of team member
behavior by part-time MBA students in the United States and Mexico. [5]
The
United States ranks low on collectivism while Mexico ranks high. They found
that collectivism (measured at the individual level) had a positive relationship
to the evaluation of a teammate. Furthermore, the evaluation was higher for
in-group members among the Mexican respondents than among the U.S.
respondents.
Power distance is another culture dimension. People in high power distance
countries expect unequal power distribution and greater stratification,
whether that stratification is economic, social, or political. An individual in a
46
position of authority in these countries expects (and receives) obedience.
Decision making is hierarchical, with limited participation and
communication. Countries with a low power distance rating, such as Australia,
value cooperative interaction across power levels. Individuals stress equality
and opportunity for everyone.
Another study by researchers compared national differences in teamwork
metaphors used by employees in six multinational corporations in four
countries: the United States, France, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. [6]
They
identified five metaphors: military, family, sports, associates, and community.
Results showed national variation in the use of the five metaphors.
Specifically, countries high in individualism (United States and France)
tended to use the sports or associates metaphors, while countries high in
power distance (Philippines and Puerto Rico) tended to use the military or
family metaphors. Further, power distance and collectivistic values were
negatively associated with the use of teamwork metaphors that emphasized
clear roles and broad scope. These results suggest that the meaning of
teamwork may differ across cultures and, in turn, imply potential differences
in team norms and team-member behaviors.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Self-managing teams shift the role of control from management to the team itself.
This can be highly effective, but if team members put too much pressure on one
another, problems can arise. It is also important to make sure teams work toward
organizational goals as well as specific team-level goals. Teams around the globe vary
in terms of collectivism and power distance. These differences can affect how teams
operate in countries around the world.
E X E R C I S E S
47
1. Have you ever felt pressure from team members to do something you didn’t want to
do? If so, how did you handle it?
2. In what ways do you think culture can affect a team?
9.6 Conclusion Research shows that group formation is a beneficial but highly dynamic
process. The life cycle of teams can often closely resemble various stages in
individual development. In order to maintain group effectiveness, individuals
should be aware of key stages as well as methods to avoid becoming stuck
along the way. Good leadership skills combined with knowledge of group
development will help any group perform at its peak level. Teams, though
similar, are different from groups in both scope and composition. Groups are
often small collections of individuals with various skill sets that combine to
address a specific issue, whereas teams can be much larger and often consist
of people with overlapping abilities working toward a common goal.
Many issues that can plague groups can also hinder the efficacy of a team.
Problems such as social loafing or groupthink can be avoided by paying careful
attention to team member differences and providing clear definitions for roles,
expectancy, measurement, and rewards. Because many tasks in today’s world
have become so complex, groups and teams have become an essential
component of an organization’s success. The success of the team/group rests
within the successful management of its members and making sure all aspects
of work are fair for each member.
48
9.7 Exercises
E T H I C A L D I L E M M A
Imagine you work at an ad agency and your team is charged with coming up with the
name for BeautyBees’s latest perfume. You have been with the company for 6
months. The branding team has been brainstorming for the last 2 hours, filling up
pages and pages of the flipchart with innovative, imaginative names. Feeling daunted
by how loudly, quickly, and assertively branding team members are shouting out
suggestions, you decide to sit this one out, even though you have some ideas. You
are uncomfortable shouting over everyone else and you reason that the group would
discount your input anyway. Plus, everyone else is generating so many good names
that the group is bound to succeed regardless of your input.
What Do You Think?
1. Is your lack of participation ethical? Why or why not?
2. What are the implications of speaking up or not speaking up?
3. Would you change your answer if you’d been with the company for 10 years instead
of 6 months?
