Supervisory management Chapter 9 Group Development and Team Building

Norms

Rules of behavior developed by group members to provide guidance for group activities.

How to Succeed with Self-Directed Work Teams

. Have a well thought-out vision of how these teams will fit into the scheme of the entire organization. A common vision of the leadership must be in place and supported by everyone in management with a complete understanding of the concept of teams. 2. With this vision, the entire organization must be prepared to change the culture to support the teams. Teams may be radi- cally counter to what the organization has been doing, so the preparation must be thorough. The change must be a result of incremental steps so everyone will understand the vision and philosophy behind the change. Employee attitudes are some- times difficult to change, so they will have to have a good idea as to what the teams will do for them and what's in it for them. Management must have a complete understanding of the culture of the organization and how to change it. 3. The organization must have the resources necessary to commit to this type of change in time, money, and people. A large upfront investment will be needed and the time frame will be long-term. People to train and develop the teams will be needed. Either in-house personnel (if they have the skills) or consultants can initially be used, but in the long-term, facilita- tors and supervisors must be available to help the team. Management must be certain that they have assessed the resources accurately and are willing to commit them to the endeavor. 4. Training is an extremely significant part of developing the teams. Team members must be trained in skills to allow them to function together: conflict management (probably the most difficult skill for team members to learn), assertiveness, commu- nication (listening in particular), problem solving and decision making, and other skills that will enable people to work together effectively. At the same time, facilitators and supervisors must be trained to work with teams. There are new skills supervisors will need to help the teams be successful. It is important they get these skills. Coaching and counseling are skills a supervisor must learn to help the work teams. 5. After the training takes place, it will take time for the teams to get used to one another and develop their new-found skills. When the training is over, the development begins and the development is just as important as the training. Many organiza- tions believe that once the training is over, the teams are ready to function, and this is not necessarily the case. Some teams will take longer to develop than others. Management must have the patience and people available to help this development. In fact, development is an ongoing process and if done correctly, will never end. 6. Performance expectations of the teams must be developed so they will know what is expected of them. The performance stan- dards must be attainable and not "pie-in-the-sky" type standards no one really understands or will be able to achieve. Not only must expectations be developed but also a method to measure these expectations so management can actually see what the teams are accomplishing. Many organizations never measure team performance, and this is a very disastrous mistake. 7. A feedback method to teams must be developed so they can also see what they are doing and make corrections where neces- sary. The only way there can be continuous improvement in performance is for them to know where they are in relation to the developed standards. If they know, they can and will improve. 8. Boundaries must be set in which the teams will be allowed to operate. This is different from performance expectations in that the teams have to know and understand the limits of their empowerment. Many organizations start right off wanting teams to make "all" the decisions. The problem is the organization doesn't really understand what "all" means and they have problems because the teams are making decisions they should not be making. When management corrects the decision, it causes a setback in team development and long-term effectiveness. Teams should start with narrow boundaries, maybe only simple decisions until they begin to understand and become more comfortable with the decision-making process. As the teams become more sophisticated, they can expand their boundaries and take on more complex decision making. However, teams should only make decisions which affect their immediate team. 9. Do not develop the thinking that self-directed work teams are "leaderless" or never need management intervention. These teams may be able to take over some of the functions of management, but to think they will never need "coaching" or guid- ance and they will survive on their own will lead to failure of the teams. Supervisors will not be completely replaced, but they will develop a new roll [sic] of coaches and advisors to teams. These advisors, having been trained to work with teams, can help the teams be very successful, or they can cause a serious problem. If they offer the kind of facilitation needed, they can make the difference between success and failure.

team

A collection of people who must rely on group cooperation. is a collection of people who must rely on group cooperation if the team is to experience the most success possible and thereby achieve its goals.15 Experience has demonstrated successful teams are empowered to establish some or all of a team's goals, make decisions about how to achieve those goals, undertake the tasks required to meet them, and be mutually accountable for their results.16 Unfortunately, a number of teams do not achieve their optimum success and poten- tial. This is often caused by the team leader's leadership style being too autocratic or per- missive in managing the group. Consequently, several of the characteristics of an effec- tive team are lacking. These characteristics are shown in Exhibit 9-10. The following sections illustrate how the characteristics of an effective team are implemented through the use of organizational team building. Teams and organizations may not be successful because they fail at one or more of the following concepts, first identified by the renowned leadership expert, John W. Gardner: 1. effective leadership at the top of the team and/or organization; 2. effective recruitment of good and talented people; and 3. the creation of an environment so good and talented people grow and develop. To gain insight into how effective these concepts and characteristics are, we examine team building in various types of organizations.

informal groups

A group that evolves out of the formal organization but is not formed by management or shown in the organization's structure s evolve out of the employees' need for social interaction, friendship, communication, and status. Although not a part of the formal organization, an informal group can sometimes be the same as a formal work team. The group members might give more allegiance to the informal leader than to the formal manager. Other types of informal groups cross formal work team boundaries and are based on common interests. An informal interest group may come together to seek increased fringe benefits or attempt to solve a particularly broad-based software problem. Another type of informal group is a friendship group. Its members also have common interests, but they are more social in nature. Such groups could include a running team, a band, or the people who gather to chat during a break.

network groups

Are dispersed and require collaboration and coordination across different projects and sometimes form groups outside the organization.

How Groups Develop

B. W. Tuckman developed a model of small-group development that encompasses four stages of growth.8 A desirable feature of this classical model—that basically has been fol- lowed by later researchers9—is it examines the stages in terms of task functions and interpersonal relations, both essential concerns of any group. Stages of Group Development The stages of group development defined by Tuck- man are (1) forming, (2) storming, (3) norming, and (4) performing. There is some overlap between the stages, and the length of time spent in each stage can vary. However, the central concept is a group usually remains in a stage until key issues are resolved before moving to the next stage. Sometimes a group appears to resolve key issues but really has not. In this case, after moving to the next stage, the group shifts back to the earlier stage to resolve the unsettled issue. The characteristics of each stage follow. Stage 1: Forming This is the stage in which members first come together and form initial impressions. Among other things, they try to determine the task of the group and their role expectations of one another. In this stage, members depend on a leader to pro- vide considerable structure in establishing an agenda and guidelines, since they tend to be unsure of what is expected of them. Stage 2: Storming The storming stage is typically a period of conflict and—ideally— organization. Conflicts arise over goals, task behaviors (that is, who is responsible for what), and leadership roles. Relationship behaviors emerge, because people have strong feelings and express them, sometimes in a hostile manner. It is a mistake to suppress conflict; the key is to manage it. If a group gets through stage 2 successfully, it becomes organized and begins developing norms, rules, and standards. Stage 3: Norming This is a stage of developing teamwork and group cohesion and creating openness of communications with information sharing. Members feel good about one another and give each other positive feedback, and the level of trust and coop- eration is usually quite high. These desirable characteristics of team development result from establishing agreed-on goals and finalizing the processes, standards, and rules by which the group will operate. If the issues of the earlier stages have not been resolved, the group can regress. Later in this chapter, we will discuss norms in more detail. Stage 4: Performing This is the stage that the group shows how efficiently and effec- tively it can operate to achieve its goals. Information exchange develops to the point of joint problem solving, and there is shared leadership. As one organizational behavior text points out, "Some groups continue to learn and develop from their experiences and new inputs.... Other groups—especially those that have developed norms not fully supportive of efficiency and effectiveness—may perform only at the level needed for their survival."10 Thus, group development, like individual development, is a continuing process.

challengers

Challengers are questioning, playing the role of devil's advocate when necessary and push the team to move out of its comfort zone.

collaborators

Collaborators to keep the members focused on the team's actual goal(s) or purpose.

communicators

Communicators fill the social and emotional needs of the group or team.

contributors

Contributors help keep the group or team focused on the task.

External Change

Forces outside the organization that have a great impact on organizational change management has little control over these numerous external forces Management has little control over the strong impact of numerous external change forces. Yet an organization depends on and must interact with its external environment if it is to survive. Specifically, resources, profits, and customers for products and services are all from the outside. Therefore, any force that impacts or changes the environment affects the orga- nization's operations and brings about pressures requiring a change response. External forces—from technological advancements to consumers' changing requirements—cause an organization to alter its goals, structure, and methods of conducting business

Evaluating Groups

Groups, whether formal or informal, are a fact of organizational life. In this section, we discuss important advantages and limitations of groups. Advantages of Groups Among the major advantages of groups are they (1) provide members with opportunities for need satisfaction, and (2) may function more effectively than individuals. Provide Opportunities for Need Satisfaction Group membership provides an opportunity for members to satisfy security and relationship needs as well as higher- level esteem and self-actualization needs. Group membership can be highly satisfying. For example, being viewed as a member of a high-performing problem-solving task force brings out feelings of pride. At times, a task you perceive as drudgery may actually turn out to be less distasteful when you are working together in a group. May Function More Effectively Than Individuals Synergy is the concept that two plus two can equal five. This is one of the major potential advantages of groups. The combination of members possessing different perspectives, experiences, and job skills can often work in a team's favor. Moreover, individuals operating as a group may feel a collective responsibility that often leads to higher motivation and commitment. Limitations of Groups Among the general limitations of groups are they may (1) encourage social loafing, (2) diffuse responsibility, and (3) be less effective than individuals. Encourage Social Loafing Social loafing is the term used to describe "taking a free ride" when working with others as a team. We have all known team members who did not pull their weight as part of a team writing a group term paper or putting together a classroom presentation. Generally, social loafing occurs because some members genuinely believe their contributions to the group are not significant or they hope for a free ride. Free riders are reinforced when they receive rewards or recognition on an equal basis with those who have carried the greater load. Diffuse Responsibility The diffusion of responsibility among members of a group is somewhat related to social loafing and is also one of its major causes. Because each per- son may be expected to do only a part of a project, no one person may feel totally responsible. Diffused responsibility may result in groups assuming positions individual members would not take if held individually accountable. The "Oh, what the heck" atti- tude, as well as the idea "they" will handle it, leads to more liberal risk taking. This also means the more mundane, routine, and undesirable group tasks may be neglected by individual members in the hope someone else will complete them. May be Less Effective Than Individuals Although the concept of synergy is an attractive argument in favor of group effort, the sad fact is sometimes two plus two equals three. One classic study showed this effect dramatically. One would expect a group of three pulling on a rope to exert three times the pulling power each could attain separately. Such was not the case: Groups exerted a force only two and a half times the average of individual performance.11 Thus, as a result of social loafing, diffusion of responsibility, and other factors, groups may not necessarily be more productive and effective than individuals.

Virtual group or team

It is dislocated - and mostly, if not exclusively, meets online and can face the added challenges of different time zones, less frequent verbal communications, the lack of a physical presence, and any informal interactions that leads to social ties among more co- located groups.

network groups

Network groups are dispersed and require collaboration and coordination across different projects and sometimes from groups outside the organization. The members roles and responsibilities are based on connections, collaboration, and targeted expertise

Internal Change Forces

Pressures for change within the organization such as cultures and objectives. Change forces also come from within. Internal change forces may result from different organization goals or new challenges, as in the case of Family Dollar, or, they may be caused by new quality initiatives, changing technologies, or employee attitudes. For example, shifting the goal from short-run profit to long-term growth directly impacts the daily work of most departments and may lead to a reorganization that streamlines overall operations. Changing to automated equipment and robotics to perform work pre- viously done by people causes changes in work routines and just-in-time supplies. Alter- ing incentive programs and personnel policies and procedures may result in different

A Nonprofit Approach to Teamwork and Team Building

The Providence Hospital and Sacred Heart Hospital Cancer Center provides a good example of effective teamwork in every aspect of patient care. Seven doctors of varying specialties are at the center. The three interviewed for this chapter were Dr. Michael Meshad, Dr. Thadeus Beeker, and Dr. Nicole Ange

Synergy

The concept that two or more people working together in a cooperative, coordinated way can accomplish more than the sum of their independent efforts. To achieve synergy and gain the most from employees, organizations require groups Synergy means the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is especially applica- ble when using teams and ad hoc task forces. Assume a five-person ad hoc task force is given the opportunity to solve a problem that has an impact on the entire organization. If the team reaches a synergistic solution to the problem, then synergy can be mathemat- ically defined as 1 1 1 1 1 more than 5. It is important for supervisors to understand the basic concepts of group or team development because work groups or teams produce the synergistic effect needed for management to reach its goals.

group cohesiveness

The mutual liking and team feeling in a group

Organizational Effectiveness

The result of activities that improve the organizations structure, technology, and people. The nature of the problem causing the organization to be less than ideally effective determines the choice of the particular technique used to achieve change. From a choice of alternatives, management determines which one is most likely to produce the desired outcome. Diagnosing the problem includes defining the outcome desired from the change. In general, the desired outcome is either improved employee behavior or activi- ties that results in improved performance. This can be achieved by changing the organi- zation's structure, technology, and/or people (Exhibit 9-2). This classification of organizational elements in no way implies a distinct division among elements. According to the systems concept, a change in one element is likely to affect other elements. In general, the more change that is required, the more likely it is management will change all three elements. Management must decide the desired outcomes and the type of change programs to use to modify the specific organizational element—including those activities needed to get the work done effectively (Exhibit 9-2). Changing the organization's structure involves modifying and rearranging internal relationships. This includes such variables as authority-responsibility relationships, communications systems, work flows, and size and composition of work groups

virtuoso groups

Virtuoso groups are composed of top performers who excel in their respective specialties and are usually focus on important performance issues

Determining Group Effectiveness

What are the key factors determining the effectiveness of groups? Exhibit 9-6 highlights the essential variables affecting group satisfaction, goal accomplishment, and productiv- ity. As the model demonstrates, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between leader- ship (the causal variable), group characteristics (the intervening variables), and the end result variables. Variables affecting group effectiveness are (1) group size, (2) member composition and roles, (3) norms, and (4) group cohesiveness. Group Size Without question, the size of the work group has an impact on a group's effectiveness. The size of a group depends to a large extent on its purpose. Organizations can take a contingency approach to determining a manager's span of control, that influ- ences the size of the natural group. With the increasing use of committees, task forces, quality circles, and self-managing work teams, we need additional guidelines for determin- ing the size of these types of groups. Exhibit 9-7 provides guidelines on the effects of size on group leadership, members, and group processes. It has been our experience the ideal size for a problem-solving group is five to seven members. As Exhibit 9-7 highlights, with this size, there is less chance for differences to arise between the leader and members, chance of domination by a few members, and time required for reaching decisions In company and project workshops, we usually use ad hoc task forces of five to seven to study an issue and report back to the larger group with a recommended plan of action. Almost invariably, the action plan is accepted with only minor modifications. The one time we ran into difficulty was when we used a larger group—14 people—to develop an action plan. In that instance, the reported agreement was later sabotaged by a subgroup of the original group of 14. Their complaint was the agreement had been rushed through by two of the more dominating members. On the other hand, one study has found a group of 14 members is the ideal size for a fact-finding group.12 This shows once again the ideal size depends on the group's purpose. Member Composition and Roles The composition of a group has considerable impact on productivity. At the minimum, the ability of members to carry out the mis- sion is a major factor. The more alike members are in age, background, value systems, education, personality type, and so forth, the more similarly they see things. The litera- ture suggests for tasks that are relatively simple and require maximum cooperation, homogeneous groups are superior.13 Conversely, for complex tasks, groups composed of members with widely differing backgrounds are superior because a greater number of different ideas would be generated, increasing the probability of creativity. Whatever the group's composition, key task and maintenance roles must be carried out if the group is to be effective (Exhibit 9-8). In carrying out the group's activities, members tend to shift back and forth between these roles naturally. This is especially true in problem-solving groups and regular work teams where the formal leader is skill- ful in getting everyone to participate. Many members in a problem-solving group play several task or maintenance roles. Unfortunately, ineffective roles or behaviors, such as dominating, can have a negative impact on group effectiveness (see Exhibit 9-8). The skill is for the leader to operate so members share the leadership role and ineffective behaviors are minimized.

Formal groups

constitute a group. If a group becomes too large, interaction among all members is diffi- cult. This leads to the evolution of smaller groups. Remember, one finding of the Hawthorne studies was groups could be either supportive of organizational goals or opposed to them overall.

self-managing work group

have become more common today, partly because of management's efforts to sustain competitive advantages through downsizing, increased efficiencies, enhanced technologies, etc. Europe was in the forefront of experimenting with self-managing work teams, but managers in Canada and the United States quickly followed, using these types of groups/teams as building blocks of a corporate renaissance in productivity. In Exhibit 9-5, strategies for implementing self-managing work groups successfully are presented. Illustrated here is the experience of a small southern plant

Groups

have been defined in various ways. The definition we prefer is a group is two or more people who communicate and work together regularly in pursuit of one or more common objectives. This highlights that at least two individuals must work together to constitute a group. If a group becomes too large, interaction among all members is diffi- cult. This leads to the evolution of smaller groups. Remember, one finding of the Hawthorne studies was groups could be either supportive of organizational goals or opposed to them overall.