Download Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork

Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork
KnowledgeBank #1, p. 257
Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Work and Teamwork
Groups have always been the building blocks of organizations. Yet groups and teams
have grown in importance during the past decade as fundamental units of organization
structure. In an attempt to adapt to rapidly changing environments, many work
organizations have granted teams increased autonomy and flexibility. Cross-functional
teams have been formed in many firms to achieve a broader perspective on problem
solving and simultaneously to help downplay intergroup rivalries. Teams are also asked
to span traditional boundaries by working more closely with groups from other
disciplines. Furthermore, teams are often required to work more closely with customers
and suppliers.
The increased acceptance of teams suggests that group work offers many
advantages. Nevertheless, it is useful to specify several of these advantages and also to
examine the potential problems of groups.
Advantages of Group Work and Teamwork
Group work and group decision making offer several advantages over individual effort. If
several knowledgeable people are brought into the decision-making process, a number of
worthwhile possibilities may be uncovered. It is also possible to achieve synergy,
whereby the group’s total output exceeds the sum of the various individuals’ contribution.
For example, it would be a rare person working alone who could build an automobile.
Group decision making is also helpful in gaining acceptance and commitment, as
described in the context of the normative decision model in Chapter 5.
Group members often evaluate one another’s thinking, so the team is likely to avoid
major errors. One member might detect a major flaw in a project that might otherwise
have slipped by the group. When planning the opening of restaurants in foreign cultures,
the Burger King Corporation solicits the opinion of a person from that culture, who
becomes a temporary member of the planning team. The intent is to avoid mistakes such
as featuring hamburgers in a culture that is opposed to eating animal carcasses.
Top management teams, as well as teams at lower levels in the organization, can
often produce results superior to those attributed to individual managers. Milan Moravec
notes that a group of top executives becomes a resource that is often richer, more textured
and diverse, and more accessible than an individual leader could be.1 At the executive
level, team structures have streamlined management to some extent. Many companies
have done away with the job of the chief operating officer, and instead top executives
execute strategy themselves. James M. Citrin, a management consultant, explains that in
some circumstances the COO is another layer of bureaucracy that separates CEOs from
their business.2 To avoid this problem, top-level management teams often take up the
COO role: making spending decisions for various business units, streamlining
production, and executing strategy that can change suddenly. In a fluid structure, all
executive leaders need an external focus and skill in operations.3
Working in groups also enhances many members’ job satisfaction. Being a member
of a work group makes it possible to satisfy more needs than if one worked alone. Among
these needs are needs for affiliation, security, self-esteem, and self-fulfillment. For
example, playing a key role in a successful team effort can be fulfilling because of the job
challenge and the recognition.
Disadvantages of Group Activity
Group activity has some potential disadvantages for both organizations and individuals. A
major problem is that members face pressure to conform to group standards of
performance and conduct. Some work groups might ostracize a person who is much more
productive than his or her coworkers. Shirking of individual responsibility is another
problem frequently noted in groups. Unless work is assigned carefully to each group
member, an undermotivated person can often squeeze by without contributing his or her
fair share to a group effort.
Social loafing is the psychological term for shirking individual responsibility in a
group setting. The social loafer risks being ostracized by the group but may be willing to
pay the price rather than work hard. Loafing of this type is sometimes found in groups
1
Cited in Ellen Hart, “Top Teams,” Management Review, February 1996, p. 90.
2
Diane Brady, “An Executive Whose Time Has Gone,” BusinessWeek, August 28, 2000,
p. 125.
3
Ibid.
such as committees and project teams. Many students who have worked on team projects
have encountered a social loafer.
A major potential problem with groups and teams is that they can waste considerable
time through having too many meetings, lengthy debates, and striving for consensus over
obvious issues. A capable person working alone can often accomplish more than a team
in a much shorter time. Nordstrom Inc., a department store chain that developed a
reputation for excellent customer service, encountered a sales decrease in the late 1990s.
Some of their problems were attributed to an extreme form of consensus management
among a group of six brothers and cousins who held the title of co-president. Taking so
long to develop new marketing and operation strategies resulted in lost momentum.4
A well-publicized disadvantage of group decision making is groupthink, a
deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment in the interest of
group solidarity. Simply put, groupthink is an extreme form of consensus. The group
atmosphere values getting along more than getting things done. The group thinks as a
unit, believes it is impervious to outside criticism, and begins to have illusions about its
own invincibility. As a consequence, the group loses its own powers of critical analysis.5
Groupthink apparently took place among executives at several of the energy and
telecommunications firms charged with financial fraud in 2002. As teams of executives
discovered that their company was about to sustain substantial losses, they told company
employees to hold on to the stock. At the same time, members of the executive team
cashed in their stock options at a substantial profit. Furthermore, the executive team at
these firms awarded themselves bonuses, such as sharing $100 million, while employee
pensions lost about 90 percent of their value. Groupthink was involved because one
executive acting alone probably could not be that diabolical—he needed support from the
group!
4
Seanna Browder, “Great Service Wasn’t Enough,” BusinessWeek, April 19, 1999, p.
127.
5
Irving L. Janus, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy
Decisions and Fiascoes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972); Glen Whyte, “Groupthink
Reconsidered,” Academy of Management Review, January 1989, pp. 40–56.
Another possible example of groupthink took place during a riot to the war with
Iraq. The CIS and its director George J. Tenet emphasized the Iraqi threat of have
weapons of mass destruction despite the ambiguity of the intelligence. The CIA leaders
failed to critically examine the hazards of making such a decision. An alternative
explanation is that the White House and Pentagon generated a climate that encouraged
arriving at a decision about Iraq’s weapons based on incomplete information.6
Another concern about teams is that teamwork is an unstable arrangement because
team leaders soon revert to exercising most of the authority. As Kenneth Labich observes,
“All too often team leaders revert to form and claim the sandbox for themselves, refusing
to share authority with the other kids. Everyone else, meanwhile, sets to bickering about
peripheral things like who gets credit for what the team produces. Old habits cling to
life.”7
An effective tactic for capitalizing on the advantages of teams while
minimizing their disadvantages is to rely on teams only when the task is suited for
a team. Alan B. Drexler and Russ Forrester point out that teams can result in
wasted effort when people are forced to form and act like a team when a team is
not needed. Among the types of work not suited for teams are retail selling,
making small loans, and teaching. One key criterion for a group or team approach
is the need to collectively produce something, such as a group of people
developing a product. Another criterion is interdependence or interlocking of
work, such as developing a strategic plan that calls for input from different
business functions.8
6
David Johnson, “It’s Unclear if White House Influenced CIA Findings,” The New York
Times syndicated story, July 10, 2004.
7
Kenneth Labich, “Elite Teams,” Fortune, February 19, 1996, p. 90.
8
Alan B. Drexler and Russ Forrester, “Teamwork—Not Necessarily the Answer,” HR
Magazine, January 1998, pp. 55–58.
Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork
KnowledgeBank #2, p. 261
How to Generate Cooperation Within the Group
1. The sensitive and effective leader knows how to obtain cooperation. He or she must
understand that he or she probably does not have all the facts and opinions in a given
situation.
2. The dynamic leader understands that he or she is able to work with any group member.
3. The effective leader acquires the capacity to empathize with others. Rather than
demand the cooperation of others, he or she knows how to sell the advantages of
cooperating.
4. The organized leader carefully plans projects and chooses the moment and the place
where his or her ideas have the best chance of being accepted. He or she then presents
these ideas clearly and concisely.
5. The successful leader recognizes that the other person is probably at least partially
correct. Consequently, he or she does not let personal prejudices prevent him or her from
accepting counterpropositions and valuable ideas. The leader knows that the group
members are a little preoccupied with the ideas they think of, or use. So he or she keeps
an open mind to these ideas, and gains the cooperation of others.
SOURCE: Translated from Serge Rioux, “Avez-Vous du Leadership en Tant Que Gestionnaire?” Réunions, Vol. 4, No.
3, 2004, p. 8. (Group Americor Inc., 2160 de la Montagne, bureau 740, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 2T3,
[email protected].)
Chapter 9 Developing Teamwork
KnowledgeBank #3, p. 268
Holding a Powwow
An informal approach to laying the groundwork for cooperation among people who will
be working together as a team is to hold a powwow. Disney Studios began using the term
when Walt Disney was asked if he conducted brainstorming sessions. He answered that
he preferred to hold a powwow in which people “get together, beat the drum, light a fire,
smoke a pipe, and socialize.” As practiced at Disney, the powwow is intentionally
informal, friendly, and unstructured. It is intended to lay the groundwork for a
cooperative working relationship among team members assigned to a new project. Each
powwow has three parts. A skills inventory gives each group member a chance to
describe his or her task-relevant skills, experience, and aptitudes. An interest inventory
gives group members an opportunity to describe their off-the-job interests. The interests
revealed can serve as connectors among group members. During the data dump, each
group member expresses his or her thoughts and feelings about the project. Other
members listen without interrupting the person dumping data. An effective data dump
reduces complaining because each member of the group has an opportunity to air any
concerns about the project.
Powwows give each group member an opportunity to be heard, thus establishing open
communication.[1] As a consequence, the group of people assigned to the project takes
an important step toward becoming a team.
Soliciting Feedback on Team Effectiveness.
Yet another approach to building teamwork is for the team to receive feedback on how
well it is performing. Performance standards are set at the outset, following other
suggestions here for building teamwork. Then the group establishes a team critique
procedure, including self-evaluation by the team and evaluation by those who use the
team’s output, such as other units and customers. Once a month, about one hour is set
aside for the team to evaluate its progress and compare it to the performance
standards.[2]
When the feedback is positive, the team may experience a spurt of energy to keep
working together well. Negative feedback, so long as it is not hostile, might bring the
team together to develop action plans for improvement. The head of a maintenance team
in a nuclear power plant told his team, “The ratings I have here tell us our performance in
making repairs on time is next to last in the corporation. Will you join me in the challenge
to improve?” His challenge was greeted with cheers of approval.
[1] Mike Vance and Diane Deacon, Think Outside the Box (Franklin Lakes, N.J.: Career Press, 1995).
[2]Anthony R. Montebello, “How to Jump the 5 Barriers to Good Teamwork,” a supplement to The Pryor Report
Management Newsletter, 1995.