Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1. If team members have different ideas about how to do things, the team
will fight over how to do things rather than focus on what needs to be done.
B. Conflict Levels
1. Conflict on a team isn’t necessarily bad.
2. Conflict has a complex relationship with team performance. Relationship
conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and
animosity toward others—are almost always dysfunctional.
3. When teams are performing nonroutine activities, disagreements about task
content (called task conflicts) stimulate discussion, promote critical
assessment of problems and options, and can lead to better team decisions.
4. A study conducted in China found that moderate levels of task conflict during
the initial phases of team performance were positively related to team
creativity, but both very low and very high levels of task conflict were
negatively related to team performance.
a. In other words, both too much and too little disagreement about how a
team should initially perform a creative task can inhibit performance.
5. The way conflicts are resolved can also make the difference between effective
and ineffective teams.
a. A study of ongoing comments made by autonomous work groups showed
that effective teams resolved conflicts by explicitly discussing the issues,
whereas ineffective teams had conflicts focused more on personalities and
the way things were said.
C. Social Loafing
1. Individuals can engage in social loafing and coast on the group’s effort when
their particular contributions can’t be identified.
2. Effective teams undermine this tendency by making members individually and
jointly accountable for the team’s purpose, goals, and approach.
3. Members should be clear on what they are individually responsible for and
what they are jointly responsible for on the team.
II. Turning Individuals into Team Players
A. Introduction
1. Many people are not inherently team players.
2. Many organizations have historically nurtured individual accomplishments.
3. What can organizations do to enhance team effectiveness – to turn individual
contributors into team players?
B. Selecting: Hiring Team Players
1. Some people already possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team
players. Care should be taken to ensure that candidates could fulfill their team
roles as well as technical requirements.
2. Many job candidates do not have team skills:
a. This is especially true for those socialized around individual contributions.
b. The candidates can undergo training to “make them into team players.”
c. Personal traits also appear to make some people better candidates for
working in diverse teams.
d. Teams made up of members who like to work through difficult mental
puzzles also seem more effective and capitalizing on the multiple points of
view that arise from diversity in age and education.
C. Training: Creating Team Players
1. Training specialists conduct exercises that allow employees to experience the
satisfaction teamwork can provide.
a. Workshops help employees improve their problem-solving,
communication, negotiation, conflict-management, and coaching skills.
2. L’Oréal found that successful sales teams required much more than being
staffed with high-ability salespeople: management had to focus much of its
efforts on team building.
a. “What we didn’t account for was that many members of our top team in
sales had been promoted because they had excellent technical and
executional skills,” said L’Oréal’s senior VP of sales, David Waldock.
b. As a result of the focus on team training, Waldock says, “We are no longer
a team just on paper, working independently.”
c. “We have a real group dynamic now, and it’s a good one.”
3. Developing an effective team doesn’t happen overnight—it takes time.
D. Rewarding: Providing Incentives to Be a Good Team Player
1. An organization’s reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative
efforts rather than competitive ones.
2. Hallmark Cards, Inc. added to its basic individual-incentive system an annual
bonus based on achievement of team goals.
3. Whole Foods directs most of its performance-based rewards toward team
performance.
a. As a result, teams select new members carefully so they will contribute to
team effectiveness (and thus team bonuses).
b. It is usually best to set a cooperative tone as soon as possible in the life of
a team.
c. As we already noted, teams that switch from a competitive to a
cooperative system do not share information and make rushed,
poor-quality decisions.
4. Apparently, the low trust is typical of the competitive group and will not be
readily replaced by high trust with a quick change in reward systems.
5. These problems are not seen in teams that have consistently cooperative
systems.
6. Promotions, pay raises, and other forms of recognition should be given to
individuals who work effectively as team members by training new
colleagues, sharing information, helping resolve team conflicts, and mastering
needed new skills.
7. This doesn’t mean individual contributions should be ignored; rather, they
should be balanced with selfless contributions to the team.
8. Finally, don’t forget the intrinsic rewards, such as camaraderie, that employees
can receive from teamwork. It’s exciting and satisfying to be part of a
successful team.
9. The opportunity for personal development of self and teammates can be a very
satisfying and rewarding experience.
III. Beware! Teams Are Not Always the Answer
A. Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work.
B. Teams have increased communication demands, conflicts to manage, and
meetings to run.
C. The benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs, and that’s not always the
case.
D. Before you rush to implement teams, carefully assess whether the work requires
or will benefit from a collective effort.
E. How do you know whether the work of your group would be better done in
teams?
1. You can apply three tests to see whether a team fits your situation.
a. First, can the work be done better by more than one person?
i. A good indicator is the complexity of the work and the need for
different perspectives.
ii. Simple tasks that don’t require diverse input are probably better left to
individuals.
b. Second, does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the
people in the group that is more than the aggregate of individual goals?
i. Many service departments of new-vehicle dealers have introduced
teams that link customer-service people, mechanics, parts specialists,
and sales representatives.
ii. Such teams can better manage collective responsibility for ensuring
customer needs are properly met.
c. The final test is to determine whether the members of the group are
interdependent.
i. Using teams makes sense when there is interdependence between tasks
—the success of the whole depends on the success of each one, and
the success of each one depends on the success of the others.
(a) Soccer, for instance, is an obvious team sport. Success requires a
great deal of coordination between interdependent players.
ii. Conversely, except possibly for relays, swim teams are not really
teams.
(a) They’re groups of individuals performing individually, whose total
performance is merely the aggregate summation of their individual
performances.
IV. Summary and Implications for Managers
A. Few trends have influenced jobs as much as the massive movement to introduce
teams into the workplace.
B. Working on teams requires employees to cooperate with others, share
information, confront differences, and sublimate personal interests for the greater
good of the team.
C. Understanding the distinctions between problem solving, self-managed,
cross-functional, and virtual teams as well as multiteam systems helps determine
the appropriate applications for team-based work.
D. Concepts such as reflexivity, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, and
mental models bring to light important issues relating to team context,
composition, and processes.
E. For teams to function optimally, careful attention must be given to hiring,
creating, and rewarding team players.
F. Still, effective organizations recognize that teams are not always the best method
for getting the work done efficiently.
G. Careful discernment and an understanding of organizational behavior are needed.
Specific implications for mangers follow:
1. Effective teams have adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of
trust, and a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team
contributions. These teams have individuals with technical expertise, and the
right traits and skills.
2. Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands
and who prefer to be part of a group.
3. Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities, are
committed to a common plan and purpose, and have an accurate shared
mental model of what is to be accomplished.
4. Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team
players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals
for cooperative efforts.
5. Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit
from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice.
An Ethical Choice
The Size of Your Meeting’s Carbon Footprint
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Contrast the five types of teams
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking
Despite being in different countries, or even on different continents, many teams in
geographically dispersed teams are able to communicate effectively without meeting
face-to-face, thanks to technology such as videoconferencing, instant messaging, and
email. In fact, members of some of these virtual teams may never meet each other in
person. Although the merits of face-to-face versus electronic communication have been
debated, there may a strong ethical argument for virtual teams. Keeping team members
where they are, as opposed to having them travel every time they need to meet, may be a
more environmentally responsible choice. A very large proportion of airline, rail, and car
transport is for business purposes and contributes greatly to global carbon dioxide
emissions. When teams are able to meet virtually rather than face-to-face, they
dramatically reduce their “carbon footprint.”
In a globally connected world, what sorts of actions might you take to minimize your
organization’s environmental impact from business travel? Several tips might help to get
you started thinking about ways that virtual teams can be harnessed for greater
sustainability:
1. Encourage all team members to think about whether a face-to-face meeting is really
necessary, and to try to utilize alternative communication methods whenever possible.
2. Communicate as much information as possible through virtual means, including
email, telephone calls, and videoconferencing.
3. When traveling to team meetings, choose the most environmentally responsible
methods possible. Also, check the environmental profile of hotels before booking
rooms.
4. If the environmental savings are not enough motivation to reduce travel, consider the
financial savings. According to a recent survey, businesses spend about 8 to 12
percent of their entire budget on travel. Communicating electronically can therefore
result in two benefits: (a) it’s cheaper and (b) it’s good for the environment.
Sources: P. Tilstone, “Cut Carbon… and Bills,” Director (May 2009), p. 54; L. C. Latimer, “6 Strategies for Sustainable Business
Travel,” Greenbiz (February 11, 2011), www.greenbiz.com; F. Gebhart, “Travel Takes a Big Bite Out of Corporate Expenses,” Travel
Market Report (May 30, 2013), downloaded on June 9, 2013, from www.travelmarketreport.com.
Myth or Science?
“Team Members Who Are ‘Hot’ Should Make the Play”
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the characteristics of effective teams
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Before we tell you whether this statement is true or false, we need to take a step back and
address another question: “Can individuals go on ‘hot’ streaks?” In teams, and especially
in sports, we often hear about players who are on a streak and have the “hot hand.”
Basketball player LeBron James scores five baskets in a row, golfer Rory McIlroy makes
three birdies in a row for the European Ryder Cup team, and tennis player Serena
Williams hits four aces in a row during a doubles match with her sister Venus. Most
people (around 90 percent) believe LeBron, Rory, and Serena will continue to score well
because they are on a hot streak, performing above their average.
Although people believe in the “hot hand,” the score is tied on whether it actually exists.
About half the relevant studies have shown that it does, while the remaining half show it
does not. But perception is often reality, so perhaps the more important question is
whether belief in the hot hand affects teams’ strategies. One study of volleyball players
showed that coaches and players allocate more balls to players who are believed to have
the hot hand. Is this a good strategy? If the hot player’s performance is typically lower
than her teammates’, then giving her more balls to hit will hurt the team because the
better players aren’t getting enough chances to hit. But if the player’s performance is
typically higher than that of her teammates, giving her more balls to hit will likely help
the team.
Considering all the research to date, however, the opening statement appears to be false.
Sources: M. Raab, B. Gula, and G. Gigerenzer, “The Hot Hand Exists in Volleyball and Is Used for Allocation Decisions,” Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, no. 1 (2012), pp. 81–-94; T Gilovich, R. Vallone, and A. Tversky, “The Hot Hand in
Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences,” Cognitive Psychology, 17 (1985), pp. 295–-314; and M. Bar-Eli, S. Avugos,
and M. Raab, “Twenty Years of ‘“Hot Hand’” Research: The Hot Hand Phenomenon: Review and Critique,” Psychology, Sport, and
Exercise, 7 (2006), pp. 525–-553.
Class Exercise
1 Ask students to read
http://www.forbes.com/global/2012/0312/companies-people-india-technology-in
mobi-naveen-tewari-hot-hand.html and identify what factors are contributing to
Naveen Tewari’s success. Is his success sustainable?
2 Then ask students to look for other examples where individuals could seemingly
do no wrong, and then suddenly find everything a challenge.
3 Ask students to identify similarities in the situations. What conclusions can be
drawn?
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
Career OBjectives
Is it wrong that I’d rather have guys on my team?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the characteristics of effective teams
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Please don’t call me sexist; women are great colleagues and equally effective managers,
but I’d rather have men on my team. It’s more relaxing for me, and for the other guys I
think, because we naturally understand each other and can talk freely. The teams with all
men that I’ve been in have all been very productive. —Jorge
Dear Jorge,
With all the talk currently focused on gender diversity in organizations, your viewpoint is
refreshingly honest. And your preferences are not uncommon. Researchers who studied 8
years of employee surveys from a large U.S. organization found that individuals were
happier on teams mainly of their own gender, whereas those on diverse teams reported
less happiness, trust, and cooperation. Researcher Sara Fisher Ellison noted, “People are
more comfortable around other people who are like them.”
In some ways, the preference for our own gender in teams is an ugly truth. After all, if
there hadn’t been gender diversity initiatives and protections, a majority of professional
positions may still be closed to women in masculine cultures like Japan, Austria, and
Venezuela (see Hofstede’s cultural values in Chapter 5). The value system in many
countries has fortunately changed, with increased recognition of team diversity’s
potential for higher morale, trust, and satisfaction. Notice that these are values, as
opposed to the reported reality from the paragraph above. Ellison concluded that there is
a “mismatch between the kind of workplace people think they would like and the actual
workplace that would make them happier.”
Don’t think this is your ticket to male-only teams, though. Happiness aside, this study
found that diverse teams realized significantly greater revenues, productivity, and
performance. Other research in Spain indicated that gender-diverse teams realize novel
solutions and radical innovation at a greater rate. Still other research suggested that
gender-diverse teams perform better than male-dominated ones in sales and profits. The
contextual climate is key, though. One metaanalysis found that gender equality and
collectivism were important conditions for task performance in diverse teams, a Danish
study indicated that diverse top management teams realized higher financial performance
only when the structure supported cross-functional team work, and a study in South
Korea indicated that cooperative group norms can lower the negative effects of gender
diversity.
What all this means for you is that, while you may naturally prefer to work with men, it’s
not good for business. You would be better off putting your efforts into creating an
egalitarian Atmosphere and choosing your teammates based on what they can contribute
to your team.
Sources: C. Diaz-Garcia, A. Gonzalez-Moreno, and F. Jose Saez-Martinez, “Gender Diversity within R&D Teams: Its Impact on
Radicalness of Innovation,” Innovation-Management Policy & Practice 15, no. 2 (2013): 149–60; S. Hoogedoorn, H. Oosterbeek, and
M. van Praag, “The Impact of Gender Diversity on the Performance of Business Teams: Evidence from a Field Experiment,”
Management Science 59, no. 7 (2013): 1514–28; N. Opstrup and A. R. Villadsen, “The Right Mix? Gender Diversity in Top
Management Teams and Financial Performance,” PublicAdministration Review, 2015, 291–301; M. Schneid, R. Isidor, C. Li, et al.,
“The Influence of Cultural Context on the Relationship between Gender Diversity and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis,”
International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, no. 6 (2015): 733–56; J. Y. Seong and D.-S. Hong, “Gender Diversity:
How Can We Facilitate Its Positive Effects on Teams?” Social Behavior and Personality 41, no. 3 (2013): 497–508; and R. E.
Silverman, “Do Men and Women Like Working Together?” The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2014, D2.
Personal Inventory Assessments
Team Development Behaviors
Take this assessment to learn more about behavior in teams.
Point/Counterpoint
To Get the Most Out of Teams, Empower Them
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Identify the characteristics of effective teams
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Point
If you want high-performing teams with members who like each other and their jobs, I
have a simple solution. Remove the leash tied to them by management and let them make
their own decisions. In other words, empower them. This trend started a long time ago,
when organizations realized that creating layers upon layers of bureaucracy thwarts
innovation, slows progress to a trickle, and merely provides hoops for people to jump
through in order to get anything done.
You can empower teams in two ways. One way is structurally, by transferring decision
making from managers to team members and giving teams the official power to develop
their own strategies. The other way is psychologically, by enhancing team members’
beliefs that they have more authority, even though legitimate authority still rests with the
organization’s leaders. However, structural empowerment leads to heightened feelings of
psychological empowerment, giving teams (and organizations) the best of both worlds.
Research suggests empowered teams benefit in a number of ways. Members are more
motivated. They exhibit higher levels of commitment to the team and to the organization.
And they perform much better too. Empowerment sends a signal to the team that it is
trusted and doesn’t have to be constantly micromanaged by upper leadership. And when
teams get the freedom to make their own choices, they accept more responsibility for and
take owner-ship of both the good and the bad.
Granted, that responsibility also means empowered teams must take the initiative to
foster their ongoing learning and development, but teams entrusted with the authority to
guide their own destiny do just that. So do yourself (and your company) a favor and make
sure that teams, rather than needless layers of middle managers, are the ones making the
decisions that count.
Counterpoint
Empowerment can do some good in certain circumstances, but it’s certainly not a
cure-all.
Yes, organizations have become flatter over the past several decades, paving the way for
decision making authority to seep into the lower levels of the organization. But consider
that many teams are “empowered” simply because the management ranks have been so
thinned that there is no one left to make the key calls. Empowerment is then just an
excuse to ask teams to take on more responsibility without an accompanying increase in
tangible benefits like pay.
In addition, the organization’s leadership already has a good idea of what it would like its
teams (and individual employees) to accomplish. If managers leave teams to their own
devices, how likely is it that those teams will always choose what the manager wanted?
Even if the manager offers suggestions about how the team might proceed, empowered
teams can easily ignore that advice. Instead, they need direction on what goals to pursue
and how to pursue them. That’s what effective leadership is all about.
When decision making authority is distributed between among team members, each
member’s role is less clear, and members lack a leader to whom they can go for advice.
And finally, when teams are self-managed, they become like silos, disconnected from the
rest of the organization and its mission. Simply handing people authority is no guarantee
they will use it effectively. So, leave the power to make decisions in the hands of those
who have worked their way up the organization. After all, they got to be leaders for a
reason.
Source: S. I. Tannenbaum, J. Mathieu, E. Salas, and D. Cohen, “Teams Aare Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast
Enough,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2012), pp. 2–-24; and R. Ashkenas, “How tTo Empower Your Team for
Non-Negotiable Results,” Forbes (April 24, 2013), downloaded on June 10, 2013, from www.forbes.com.
Class Exercise:
1 Divide the class into pairs of groups of three to five students each.
2 Assign one group of the pair to the Point position and the other to the
Counterpoint position
3 Ask the pairs to seek additional information from the Internet or other sources
about their assigned position.
4 In class, ask pairs to debate the position assigned.
5 After each side of the debate, ask the remainder of the class to vote on the
position they think was better supported and more persuasive.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
