Download Another Good Example of a Lit Review ()

RETURN TO JULIE FREEMAN, CA 343A
Creating Effective Teams
Introduction
Teams and Teamwork. Organizations everywhere are implementing teams into their daily business
activities. Quality teams and work teams are the hottest current trends. Even organizations that are not
setting up formal teams are pushing employees to use teamwork to improve performance.
Some organizations have structures that naturally lend themselves to work in teams, but need the tools to
properly organize and implement teams that will be effective; the Indianapolis Star and News circulation
department has such a structure. Teamwork has been a major concern of his since he began working with
the Indianapolis Star and News, two years ago. Some of the methods that have previously been tried
include an independently-conducted employee attitude and opinion survey, consulting from an industrial
psychologist, training sessions for supervisors, and various contests. However, teamwork continues to be
an issue that causes conflict among the circulation department.
Indianapolis Star and News background. The circulation department is responsible for orders and
distribution of the newspaper. Within this department, the city is divided into several divisions, each with
a circulation substation office. At these substations, news carriers pick up the papers to be delivered.
There are also several districts within the division substation that are run by district managers. Among
other duties, the district manager is responsible for the carriers who deliver routes on that district. Some
carriers deliver more than one route, and it is possible for a carrier to report to more than one district
manager. Each district is paired with a Asister district”. These Asister district” managers are supposed to
1
help each other when needed and cover problems on their sister districts on the other manager’s day off,
typically Wednesday or Thursday. This, of course, is the ideal plan. Unfortunately, this has caused some
conflict among managers who are reluctant to cover another district when they have their own problems to
deal with. This undermines the team atmosphere and puts division managers in the position of ordering
district managers to cooperate and work together.
This review of recently published literature on teamwork addresses organizational structure, group
dynamics, creating teams, and issues for supervisors.
Organizational Structure/Dynamics
Many authors agree that the way in which an organization is set up structurally can either facilitate or
hinder its use of teams and teamwork. A traditional organization, where Alower” level or front line
employees are treated as mindless workers who have no valid input, may have a much more difficult time
implementing a team structure as compared to an organization where front line employee input is valued
(Butman,1993; Baskerville, 1993).
Often, the methods a company uses to implement teams can also cause conflict and tension. Cynthia Stohl,
a Purdue professor, says this happens when the team programs disconnect the worker and stifle creativity,
rather than serving the intended purpose of connecting workers with the company and opening doors to
creativity (1996). Stohl calls these Aparadoxes of teamwork”, and explains that paradoxes can occur at
nearly every phase and level of team structure. Particular areas that might be relevant for the Star & News
to be aware of include paradoxes of design, commitment, participation, and cooperation (1996).
2
According to Stohl (1996), the paradox of design occurs when a company implements team programs to
give workers more control over their jobs, but results in causing middle managers to feel threatened and
low-level employees to feel pressured to participate. The paradox of commitment is the view, by the
company or the employees, that commitment should equal agreement. Thus, anyone who doesn’t agree
with company ideas or standards is seen as someone whose ideas need to be corrected back to the company
view. A paradox of participation involves training that is seen by employees to be faddish, useless, or a
waste of time. This results in employees who don’t participate or communicate ideas that can be useful for
the company. Finally, the paradox of cooperation is an especially crucial area for companies to be aware
of. It is the result of a company that implements teams and participatory programs, but continues to
evaluate employees based on individual performance, giving no incentive to contribute to a team. If these
paradoxes are not planned for or corrected, they can lead to unsuccessful team programs and poor team
dynamics due to the conflict and tension already existing within the organizational structure (Stohl, 1996).
Team / Group Dynamics
Recently published articles point out that the way a team functions or doesn’t function together is
dependent upon many factors, particularly the organizational structure discussed above, and the personal
traits of the members of the team. The manner in which a team interacts with each other can determine its
success or failure. According to Allcorn (1989), there are different types of groups that may be working
within any organization. Robbins (1995), also states that there are several different kinds of groups that
may or may not be successful teams. As Robbins and other authors note, there is a difference between a
group and a team. Most generally, a group is defined as two or more people together for a common
purpose, while a team is additionally defined by traits such as commitment, specific goals, and mutual
accountability (Robbins, 1995). Both Allcorn and Robbins have categorized four types of groups or teams,
3
similar in definition and function, but separated based on different criteria. The groups defined by Allcorn
are defined by the interactions of the members of the group, the anxiety produced by group membership,
and how this anxiety effects productivity, while Robbins categorizes groups and teams based on the
amount of synergy and team characteristics present or not present.
The groups each of these authors describe range from groups dominated by a lack of security and trust to
groups that actually have a negative impact, where the sum of the parts equals less than the group effort.
However, each author does discuss one group that can be considered a true team. Robbins calls his model
simply a “real team,” while Allcorn defines his as an “intentional group.” Both of these teams are
characterized by strong positive interpersonal relations, mutual accountability, and synergy. Clearly, these
are the areas to begin with in searching for ways to create effective teams.
Making Groups Into Teams
As discussed above, most authors agree that there are certain characteristics that separate true
teams from other groups (Robbins, 1995; Allcorn, 1993; Bhasin, 1990; Baskerville, 1993; Hamilton, 1992;
Klein, 1995; “Seven...”, 1996; Slobodnik, 1996). Although the terms and definitions vary, the basics are
the same throughout many articles.
The most universally agreed upon idea of a team describes a group that has a clear and common purpose,
with members who understand where they each fit in that purpose, and that uses agreed upon techniques
(Allcorn, 1993; Robbins, 1996; “Seven...”, 1996; Slobodnik, 1996). As Bhasin (1990), points out,
AGroups can’t be teams unless the members know their roles (what position they play), and the ground
4
rules (how the game is played).” Overall, the most commonly discussed traits of a team include common
goals or purpose; communication and feedback; and, trust and mutual accountability (Hamilton, 1995;
Baskerville, 1993; Bhasin, 1990; Klein, 1995; “Seven..., 1996). With all of these characteristics present, a
group has the ability to raise itself to the level of accomplishment that true teams can achieve.
To create groups with these traits, countless methods are offered. Again, there are some common
ideas that appear in several articles. The idea that appears as a basic underlying factor critical to creating
desired traits in all methods is training. Training should be given to members of a group to explain what is
being asked of them and to give them the tools they will need to function as a team. One management
consultant, quoted in Hamilton (1992), states, Athere needs to be a system in place to consistently train
employees in goal-setting...”. The author goes on to discuss the necessity of employees in newly-formed
teams to learn Anew technical skills, in addition to new social and leadership skills, as well as new
responsibilities” (Hamilton, 1992). Training should also continue throughout the team’s existence to
provide the team with continued support and education in a wide variety of areas such as quality assurance,
brainstorming, management skills, and interpersonal skills (ASeven..”, 1996). Baskerville (1993)
recommends that training should not be limited to a certain time frame, since there is no way to predict
how long it will take for a group to accept the change to teams and to buy into the concepts introduced.
Once the initial training is complete, he also states that a support system should be left in place to continue
the support for the team implementation. According to one organizational design expert, John Williams,
Jr. (1993), who helped AT&T revamp their structure to work teams, “Teams must be constantly supported
until the concept is firmly entrenched, or they’ll slip back into old behaviors” (as cited in Baskerville,
1993).
The authors agree that without training, team members will not have the skills to begin or continue to work
5
together. However, training will be useless and forgotten if positive skills are not reinforced and negative
habits addressed. This is the reason for the importance of communication and feedback both during
training and as a team works together. The two concepts are closely related in that feedback prevents
communication from breaking down within the team. Feedback should come from the supervisor or team
leader, as well as from within the group. The ultimate goal of most permanent groups is to become a selfdirected work team, which relies almost completely on good communication among members and constant
feedback from the team. To encourage positive communication and feedback, one management consultant
encourages the use of a structured feedback system that is based on certain principles and used as a base
for all training (Hamilton, 1992). The nine principles of this kind of structured feedback system focus on
who should be involved in the feedback (the concerned parties, one person at a time), when feedback
should be given (regular group opportunities, private real-time opportunities), and how feedback should be
given (separation between positive and improvement feedback, no censoring allowed) (Hamilton, 1992).
Communication can take on different meanings and encompass many aspects. For example, one article
classifies communication with collaboration and consensus, grouping all three as interaction. The article
explains that the importance of the three is the sharing of information, skills, and negotiations to provide a
working environment that is open to discussion, sharing and refinement of ideas, and cooperation
(“Seven...”, 1996, p. 12). This open environment will help to prevent conflicts within the team that can
cause the team to fail. Slobodnik (1996) calls these conflicts the “team killers” and compares team conflict
to dysfunctional families (p. 21). Several of the conflicts identified are based on a lack of communication
or trust, so it becomes clearer just how important good communication and feedback can be to the success
of a team.
6
Also critical to the success of a team are common purpose, specific goals and agreed upon methods
(Robbins, 1995; “Seven..., 1996; Bhasin, 1990; Baskerville, 1993; Klein, 1995). Without all members
sharing the same vision, going the same direction, and using the same tools to get to their destination, there
can be no team. The purpose, or vision, is vital to the team to clarify the importance of their goals. As one
motivational speaker on teambuilding says, “The key to teamwork is not just giving people goals, but
outlining concrete reasons why they should achieve those goals” (as cited in Baskerville, 1993, p. 82). The
goals, then must be set with the ultimate purpose in mind, but be more concrete and measurable. These
goals are important to keep the team on track and the lines of communication open (“Seven...”, 1996).
Along with the purpose and goals, a common approach will unify the team and make sure each member
understands his or her place within the team.
To further clarify each member’s place within the team and responsibilities to the team, it is important that
the team be evaluated on both an individual and group level. This ensures mutual accountability and helps
prevent >social loafing’ (Robbins, 1995; Comer, 1995). Social loafing is defined by Robbins (1995) as
“the tendency of group members to do less than they are capable of individually when their individual
contribution is not measured” (p. 27). This means that member contribution is more likely to be equal
when the team members know that their individual performance will be measured. If individual success
depends upon the success of the team, then the team has “goal interdependence” (Ortiz, 1996). However, if
a team is competing for some of the same resources, called “resource interdependence” (Ortiz, 1996, p.
32), group evaluation is helpful in providing motivation to cooperate. Several authors point out that
forming teams without a tool to evaluate those teams will not be as productive for the company (Robbins,
1995; Stohl, 1996; Klein, 1995; Slobodnik, 1996). Unfortunately, none of the authors is able to give an
exact formula to follow to make sure that individuals and teams are being evaluated equitably. The
7
internal dynamics of every company is different, as would its evaluation method and focus, so there can
not be one simple formula for evaluation.
Issues for Supervisors
As the change from a traditional structure to teams requires commitment and effort from the new team
members, it also requires dedication and effort from the traditional supervisor. Supervisors often are
hesitant to change because of fear of their jobs. Others simply do not know their new role as a team
supervisor or leader. According to one article, when the team leader is chosen from within the team, the
team’s supervisor should be responsible to “provide training and guidance to team leaders. To help leaders
develop their communication and facilitation skills. To offer a constant stream of ideas to team leaders.
To offer decision options to the team when it seems stuck” (“Seven...”, 1996, p. 12). Several other
authors offer concrete steps to take or qualities to develop for supervisors that are important to the
development of the team (“Adapting...”, 1995; Bhasin, 1990; Klein, 1995; Butman, 1993). Of these,
many are similar to the best characteristics of a successful team. Butman (1993) lists “seeks
consensus,...help others succeed,...open about his or her own abilities and range of knowledge.” Others
include coaching, information sharing, facilitating, feedback, flexibility, trust, availability, and conflict
resolution (“Adapting..., 1995; Bhasin, 1990). The pressures on supervisors may be more stressful to
handle since they are often caught in the middle of company goals and the needs of their teams. Again,
training seems to be consensus among the authors when determining the best solution to making Anew”
managers from traditional ones (Butman, 1993; Klein, 1995; Baskerville, 1993; Bhasin, 1990;
“Adapting...”, 1995).
Conclusion
8
There are many factors to consider when creating teams. Most authors agree that training is essential, in
areas such as communication and feedback, mutual accountability, and goal setting. Supervisors also
should not be forgotten in the change process as they can contribute experience and guidance to the team.
For the Indianapolis Star & News, these areas should be studied further for a sound basis from which to
provide recommendations. Other areas for future study might include office design to facilitate group
discussions, the possible implications of the TEAM Act, and social loafing within groups and its
consequences. For the purposes of this research, however, the focus will be on training, mutual
accountability (particularly evaluation methods), and feedback. Primary research should offer more
detailed information about these topics.
9
References
Adapting to a work team concept. (1995, August). USA Today, 124. 10.
Allcorn, S. (1989, August).Understanding groups at work. Personnel, 66. 28-36.
Baskerville, D. (1993, April). Why business loves workteams. Black Enterprise. 23. 84-90.
Bhasin, R. (1990, Jan-Feb). Teamwork: it’s bringing out the best in people. Forest Industries, 117. 15-17.
Butman, J. (1993, February). Are you an old world commander or a new world flying fox? HR Focus, 70.
6-8.
Hamilton, C. (1992, September). Training is a vital link in the process. HR Focus, 69. 4-6.
Klein, S. (1995, May). Teams under stress: the effects of work pressures and management action. IIE
Ortiz, A., D. Johnson, and R. Johnson. The effect of positive goal and resource interdependence on
individual performance. The Journal of Social Psychology. 136. 243-250.
Robbins, S. (1995). Managing Groups and Work Teams. In Supervision Today! (380-398). Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Seven steps to teamwork. Available: [online]: http://www.sae.org/ABOUT/seven.html
Slobodnik, D. & A. Slobodnik. (1996, June).The >team killers’. HR Focus, 73. 22-24.
Stohl, C. (1996, April). The paradoxes of teamwork. USA Today, 124. 7.
10
Solutions, 27. 34