Chapter 10
workgroup
a group that interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions to help each group member perform within his or her area of responsibility
reflexivity
reflecting on and adjusting master plan when necessary
ABILITIES OF MEMBERS
A team's performance depends in part on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of individual members. Abilities set limits on what members can do and how effectively they will perform on a team. the ability of the team's leader matters. Smart team leaders help less intelligent team members when they struggle with a task. A less intelligent leader can, conversely, neutralize the effect of a high-ability team.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REWARD SYSTEM
Individual performance evaluations and incentives may interfere with the development of high-performance teams. So, in addition to evaluating and rewarding employees for their individual contributions, management should utilize hybrid performance systems that incorporate an individual member component to recognize individual contributions and a group reward to recognize positive team outcomes. Group-based appraisals, profit-sharing, small-group incentives, and other system modifications can reinforce team effort and commitment.
team cohesion
A situation when members are emotionally attached to one another and motivated toward the team because of their attachment.
team identity
A team member's affinity for and sense of belongingness to his or her team.
SOCIAL LOAFING
As we noted earlier, individuals can engage in social loafing and coast on the group's effort when their particular contributions (or lack thereof) can't be identified. Effective teams undermine this tendency by making members individually and jointly accountable for the team's purpose, goals, and approach.72 Therefore, members should be clear on what they are individually and jointly responsible for on the team.
Comparing Workgroups and Work Teams
Exhibit 10-1
Four Types of Teams
Exhibit 10-2
mental models
Team members' knowledge and beliefs about how the work gets done by the team.
ADEQUATE RESOURCES
Teams are part of a larger organization system; every work team relies on resources outside the group to sustain it. A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of a team to perform its job effectively and achieve its goals. As one study concluded after looking at 13 factors related to group performance, "perhaps one of the most important characteristics of an effective work group is the support the group receives from the organization." This support includes timely information, proper equipment, adequate staffing, encouragement, and administrative assistance.
Team Processes
The final category related to team effectiveness includes process variables such as member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, mental models, a managed level of conflict, and minimized social loafing. These will be especially important in larger teams and in teams that are highly interdependent.51 Why are processes important to team effectiveness? Teams should create outputs greater than the sum of their inputs. Exhibit 10-5 illustrates how group processes can have an impact on a group's actual effectiveness.52 Teams are often used in research laboratories because they can draw on the diverse skills of various individuals to produce more meaningful research than researchers working independently—that is, they produce positive synergy, and their process gains exceed their process losses.
Team Composition
The team composition category includes variables that relate to how teams should be staffed: -the abilities and personalities of team members -allocation of roles -diversity -cultural differences -the size of the team -members' preferences for teamwork
organizational demography
the degree to which members of a work unit share a common demographic attribute, such as age, sex, race, educational level, or length of service in an organization, and the impact of this attribute on turnover
Problem-solving teams
Groups of employees from the same department who meet for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. (only make recommendations-rarely have the authority to unilaterally implement their suggestions, but if their recommendations are paired with implementation processes, some significant improvements can be realized.)
MEMBER PREFERENCES
Not every employee is a team player. Given the option, many employees will select themselves out of team participation. When people who prefer to work alone are required to team up, there is a direct threat to the team's morale and to individual member satisfaction. This suggests that, when selecting team members, managers should consider individual preferences along with abilities, personalities, and skills. High-performing teams are likely to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a group.
Virtual teams
Teams that use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. (For virtual teams to be effective, management should ensure that (1) trust is established among members (one inflammatory remark in an e-mail can severely undermine team trust), (2) progress is monitored closely (so the team doesn't lose sight of its goals and no team member "disappears"), and (3) the efforts and products of the team are publicized throughout the organization (so the team does not become invisible). It would be a mistake to think virtual teams are an easy substitute for face-to-face teams. While the geographical reach and immediacy of online communication make virtual teams a natural development, managers must make certain this type of team is the optimal choice for the desired outcome and then maintain an oversight role throughout the collaboration.)
Training: Creating Team Players
Training specialists conduct exercises that allow employees to experience the satisfaction teamwork can provide. Workshops help employees improve their problem-solving, communication, negotiation, conflict-management, and coaching skills. L'Oréal, for example, found that successful sales teams required much more than a staff of high-ability salespeople. "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 David Waldock. As a result of introducing purposeful team training, Waldock says, "We are no longer a team just on paper, working independently. We have a real group dynamic now, and it's a good one."76 An effective team doesn't develop overnight—it takes time.
team efficacy
A team's collective belief that they can succeed at their tasks.
Rewarding: Providing Incentives to Be a Good Team Player
A traditional organization's reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive ones.77 Hallmark Cards Inc. added to its basic individual-incentive system an annual bonus based on the achievement of team goals. Whole Foods directs most of its performance-based rewards toward team performance. As a result, teams select new members carefully so they will contribute to team effectiveness (and, thus, team bonuses).78 It is usually best to set a cooperative tone as soon as possible in the life of a team. As we already noted, teams that switch from competitive to cooperative do not immediately share information, and they still tend to make rushed, poor-quality decisions.79 Apparently, the low trust typical of the competitive group will not be readily replaced by high trust with a quick change in reward systems. 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. This doesn't mean individual contributions should be ignored; rather, they should be balanced with selfless contributions to the team. Finally, don't forget the intrinsic rewards, such as camaraderie, that employees can receive from teamwork. It's exciting to be part of a successful team. The opportunity for personal development of self and teammates can be a very satisfying and rewarding experience.
CONFLICT LEVELS
Conflict has a complex relationship with team performance, and it's not necessarily bad. Relationship conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibility, tension, and animosity toward others—are almost always dysfunctional. However, 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. According to one study conducted in China, 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.69 In other words, both too much and too little disagreement about how a team should initially perform a creative task can inhibit performance. The way conflicts are resolved can make the difference between effective and ineffective teams. A study of ongoing comments made by 37 autonomous work groups showed that effective teams resolved conflicts by explicitly discussing the issues, whereas ineffective teams had unresolved conflicts that were focused more on personalities and the way things were said.70 Which teams are more likely to have conflicts than others? It's not a simple answer. While we may presume that diversity increases conflicts, the answer is likely to be much more subtle than that. For example, recent research in Spain found that when individual team members varied greatly in their perceptions of organizational support, task conflict increased, communication decreased, and ultimately team performance suffered.71 If the researchers had instead compared only the average level of organizational support given to the team, rather than how members perceived the support, they would have missed the correct causal links. Thus we need to be careful not to overgeneralize.
COMMON PLAN AND PURPOSE
Effective teams begin by analyzing the team's mission, developing goals to achieve that mission, and creating strategies for achieving the goals. Teams that consistently perform better have a clear sense of what needs to be done and how.53 This sounds obvious, but many teams ignore this fundamental process. Members of successful teams put a tremendous amount of time and effort into discussing, shaping, and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them collectively and individually. This common purpose, when accepted by the team, becomes what GPS is to a ship captain: It provides direction and guidance under any conditions. Like a ship following the wrong course, teams that don't have good planning skills are doomed, executing the wrong plan.54 Teams should agree on whether their purpose is to learn about and master a task or simply to perform the task; evidence suggests that differing perspectives on learning versus performance lead to lower levels of team performance overall.55 Effective teams show reflexivity, meaning they reflect on and adjust their purpose when necessary. A team must have a good plan, but it needs to be willing and able to adapt when conditions call for it.56 Interestingly, some evidence suggests that teams high in reflexivity are better able to adapt to conflicting plans and goals among team members.57
Implications for Managers
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. Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands and who prefer to be part of a group. 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. Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts. Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice.
TEAM EFFICACY
Effective teams have confidence in themselves; they believe they can succeed. We call this team efficacy.59 Teams that have been successful raise their beliefs about future success, which, in turn, motivates them to work harder. In addition, teams that have a shared knowledge of individual capabilities can strengthen the link between team members' self-efficacy and their individual creativity because members can more effectively solicit informed opinions from their teammates.60 What can management do to increase team efficacy? Two options are helping the team achieve small successes that build confidence, and providing training to improve members' technical and interpersonal skills. The greater the abilities of team members, the more likely the team will develop confidence and the ability to deliver on that confidence.
MENTAL MODELS
Effective teams share accurate mental models—organized mental representations of the key elements within a team's environment that team members share.64 (If team mission and goals pertain to what a team needs to be effective, mental models pertain to how a team does its work.) If team members have the wrong mental models, which is particularly likely in teams under acute stress, their performance suffers.65 One review of 65 independent studies found that teams with shared mental models engaged in more frequent interactions with one another, were more motivated, had more positive attitudes toward their work, and had higher levels of objectively-rated performance.66 If team members have different ideas about how to do things, however, the team will fight over methods rather than focus on what needs to be done.67 Individuals who normally function in action teams—teams with specialists engaged in intense, interdependent, and unpredictable tasks—are likely to share mental models. Even though they are often under acute stress, their performance levels can be high because the stress has been normalized through the expected context. These action teams have learned that the best way to share mental models is to voice them. An anesthetic team in a hospital is one example of an action team with shared mental models. For example, research in Switzerland found that anesthetic teams communicated two distinct types of messages while in an operation: vocally monitoring each others' performance (not to criticize but to keep a vocal record of events), and "talking to the room" (announcements to everyone such as "Patient's blood pressure is dropping"). The study found that high- and low-performing teams communicated in these ways equally often; what mattered to performance was the sequencing of the communication to maintain a shared mental model. High-performing teams followed up monitoring dialogue with assistance and instructions, and talking-to-the-room dialogue with further team dialogue.68 The message seems simple: to maintain shared mental models, share conversation about what is happening while the team is in operation!
Cross-functional teams
Employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task. (Cross-functional teams are an effective means of allowing people from diverse areas within or even between organizations to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems, and coordinate complex projects. However, due to the high need for coordination, cross-functional teams are not simple to manage. First, it makes sense for power shifts to occur as different expertise is needed because the members are at roughly the same level in the organization, which creates leadership ambiguity. A climate of trust thus needs to be developed before shifts can happen without undue conflict. Second, the early stages of development are often long, since members need to learn to work with higher levels of diversity and complexity. Third, it takes time to build trust and teamwork, especially among people with different experiences and perspectives. In sum, the strength of traditional cross-functional teams is the collaborative effort of individuals with diverse skills from a variety of disciplines. When the unique perspectives of these members are considered, these teams can be very effective.)
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Evidence indicates cultural diversity interferes with team processes, at least in the short term, but let's dig a little deeper: what about differences in cultural status? Though it's debatable, people with higher cultural status are usually in the majority or ruling race group of their nations. Researchers in the United Kingdom found that cultural status differences affected team performance, whereby individuals in teams with more high cultural-status members than low cultural-status members realized improved performance . . . for every member. This suggests not that diverse teams should be filled with individuals who have high cultural status in their countries, but that we should be aware of how people identify with their cultural status even in diverse group settings. In general, cultural diversity seems to be an asset for tasks that call for a variety of viewpoints. But culturally heterogeneous teams have more difficulty learning to work with each other and solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time.
Team Effectiveness Model
Exhibit 10-3 (In considering the team effectiveness model, keep in mind two points. First, teams differ in form and structure. The model attempts to generalize across all varieties of teams but avoids rigidly applying its predictions to all teams. Use it as a guide. Second, the model assumes teamwork is preferable to individual work. Creating "effective" teams when individuals can do the job better is like perfectly solving the wrong problem. Third, let's consider what team effectiveness means in this model. Typically, team effectiveness includes objective measures of the team's productivity, managers' ratings of the team's performance, and aggregate measures of member satisfaction. We can organize the key components of effective teams into three general categories. First are the resources and other contextual influences that make teams effective. The second relates to the team's composition. Finally, process variables are events within the team that influence effectiveness. We will explore each of these components next.)
How do you know whether the work of your group would be better done in teams? You can apply three tests.
First, can the work be done better by more than one person? Good indicators are the complexity of the work and the need for different perspectives. Simple tasks that don't require diverse input are probably better left to individuals. 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? Many service departments of new-vehicle dealers have introduced teams that link customer-service people, mechanics, parts specialists, and sales representatives. Such teams can better manage collective responsibility for ensuring customer needs are properly met. The final test is to determine whether the members of the group are interdependent. Using teams makes sense when there is interdependence among 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.
TEAM COHESION
Have you ever been a member of a team that really "gelled," one in which team members felt connected? The term team cohesion means members are emotionally attached to one another and motivated toward the team because of their attachment. Team cohesion is a useful tool to predict team outcomes. For example, a large study in China recently indicated that if team cohesion is high and tasks are complex, costly investments in promotions, rewards, training, and so forth yield greater profitable team creativity. Teams with low cohesion and simple tasks, on the other hand, are not likely to respond to incentives with greater creativity. Team cohesion is a strong predictor of team performance such that when cohesion is harmed, performance may be, too. Negative relationships are one driver of reduced cohesion. To mitigate this effect, teams can foster high levels of interdependence and high-quality interpersonal interactions.
TEAM IDENTITY
In Chapter 9, we discussed the important role of social identity in people's lives. When people connect emotionally with the groups they're in, they are more likely to invest in their relationship with those groups. It's the same with teams. For example, research with soldiers in the Netherlands indicated that individuals who felt included and respected by team members became more willing to work hard for their teams, even though as soldiers they were already called upon to be dedicated to their units. Therefore, by recognizing individuals' specific skills and abilities, as well as creating a climate of respect and inclusion, leaders and members can foster positive team identity and improved team outcomes.61 Organizational identity is important, too. Rarely do teams operate in a vacuum—more often teams interact with other teams, requiring interteam coordination. Individuals with a positive team identity but without a positive organizational identity can become fixed to their teams and unwilling to coordinate with other teams within the organization.62
SIZE OF TEAMS
Most experts agree that keeping teams small is key to improving group effectiveness. Generally speaking, the most effective teams have five to nine members. Experts suggest using the smallest number of people who can do the task. Unfortunately, managers often err by making teams too large. It may require only four or five members to develop an array of views and skills, while coordination problems can increase as team members are added. When teams have excess members, cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing increases, and people communicate less. Members of large teams have trouble coordinating with one another, especially under time pressure. When a natural working unit is larger and you want a team effort, consider breaking the group into subteams.
DIVERSITY OF MEMBERS
Organizational demography suggests that attributes such as age or the date of joining should help predict turnover. The logic goes like this: Turnover will be greater among those with dissimilar experiences because communication is more difficult and conflict is more likely. Increased conflict makes membership less attractive, so employees are more likely to quit. Similarly, the losers of a conflict are more apt to leave voluntarily or be forced out. The conclusion is that diversity negatively affects team performance. Many of us hold the optimistic view that diversity should be a good thing—diverse teams should benefit from differing perspectives. Two meta-analytic reviews show, however, that demographic diversity is essentially unrelated to team performance, while a third review suggests that race and gender diversity are actually negatively related to team performance. Other research findings are mixed. One qualifier is that gender and ethnic diversity have more negative effects in occupations dominated by white or male employees, but in more demographically balanced occupations, diversity is less of a problem. Diversity in function, education, and expertise are positively related to team performance, but these effects are small and depend on the situation. Proper leadership can improve the performance of diverse teams. For example, one study of 68 teams in China found that teams diverse in knowledge, skills, and ways of approaching problems were more creative, but only when their leaders were transformational (see Chapter 12 for definition) and inspiring.
PERSONALITY OF MEMBERS
Some dimensions identified in the Big Five personality model are particularly relevant to team effectiveness. Conscientiousness is especially important to teams. Conscientious people are good at backing up other team members and sensing when their support is truly needed. Conscientious teams also have other advantages—one study found that behavioral tendencies such as organization, achievement orientation, and endurance were all related to higher levels of team performance. Team composition can be based on individual personalities to good effect. Suppose an organization needs to create 20 teams of 4 people each and has 40 highly conscientious people and 40 who score low on conscientiousness. Would the organization be better off (1) forming 10 teams of highly conscientious people and 10 teams of members low on conscientiousness, or (2) "seeding" each team with 2 people who scored high and 2 who scored low on conscientiousness? Perhaps surprisingly, evidence suggests option 1 is the best choice; performance across the teams will be higher if the organization forms 10 highly conscientious teams and 10 teams low in conscientiousness. The reason is that a team with varying conscientiousness levels will not work to the peak performance of its highly conscientious members. Instead, a group normalization dynamic (or simple resentment) will complicate interactions and force the highly conscientious members to lower their expectations, thus reducing the group's performance. What about the other traits? Teams with a high level of openness to experience tend to perform better, and research indicates that constructive task conflict enhances the effect. Open team members communicate better with one another and throw out more ideas, which makes teams composed of open people more creative and innovative. Task conflict also enhances performance for teams with high levels of emotional stability. It's not so much that the conflict itself improves performance for these teams, but that teams characterized by openness and emotional stability are able to handle conflict and leverage it to improve performance. The minimum level of team member agreeableness matters, too: teams do worse when they have one or more highly disagreeable members, and a wide span in individual levels of agreeableness can lower productivity. Research is not clear on the outcomes of extraversion, but a recent study indicated that a high mean level of extraversion in a team can increase the level of helping behaviors, particularly in a climate of cooperation. Thus the personality traits of individuals are as important to teams as the overall personality characteristics of the team.
Selecting: Hiring Team Players
Some people already possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team players. When hiring team members, be sure candidates can fulfill their team roles as well as technical requirements.73 Creating teams often means resisting the urge to hire the best talent no matter what. For example, the New York Knicks professional basketball team pays Carmelo Anthony well because he scores a lot of points for his team; but statistics show he takes more shots than other highly paid players in the league, which means fewer shots for his teammates.74 As a final consideration, personal traits appear to make some people better candidates for working in diverse teams. Teams made of members who like to work through difficult mental puzzles also seem more effective and able to capitalize on the multiple points of view that arise from diversity in age and education.75
SPECIFIC GOALS
Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and realistic performance goals. Specific goals facilitate clear communication. They help teams maintain their focus on getting results. Consistent with the research on individual goals, team goals should be challenging. Difficult but achievable goals raise team performance on those criteria for which they're set. So, for instance, goals for quantity tend to increase quantity, goals for accuracy increase accuracy, and so on.58
LEADERSHIP AND STRUCTURE
Teams can't function if they can't agree on who is to do what and ensure all members share the workload. Agreeing on the specifics of work and how they fit together to integrate individual skills requires leadership and structure, either from management or from team members themselves. In self-managed teams, members absorb many of the duties typically assumed by managers. A manager's job then becomes managing outside (rather than inside) the team. As we mentioned before, leadership is especially important in multiteam systems. Here, leaders need to delegate responsibility to teams and play the role of facilitator, making sure the teams work together rather than against one another.
ALLOCATION OF ROLES
Teams have different needs, and members should be selected to ensure all the various roles are filled. As you might expect, teams with more experienced and skilled members performed better. However, the experience and skill of those in core roles who handled more of the workflow of the team, and were central to all work processes (in this case, pitchers and catchers), were especially vital. In other words, put your most able, experienced, and conscientious workers in the most central roles in a team. We can identify nine potential team roles (see Exhibit 10-4). Successful work teams have selected people to play all these roles based on their skills and preferences. (On many teams, individuals will play multiple roles.) To increase the likelihood team members will work well together, managers need to understand the individual strengths each person can bring to a team, select members with their strengths in mind, and allocate work assignments that fit with members' preferred styles.
Beware! Teams Aren't Always the Answer
Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work. Teams have increased communication demands, conflicts to manage, and meetings to run. So, the benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs, and that's not always possible.80
What factors determine whether teams are successful?
The four contextual factors most significantly related to team performance are -adequate resources, -effective leadership, -a climate of trust, and -a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions.
CLIMATE OF TRUST
Trust is the foundation of leadership; it allows a team to accept and commit to the leader's goals and decisions. Members of effective teams exhibit trust in their leaders. They also trust each other. Interpersonal trust among team members facilitates cooperation, reduces the need to monitor each other's behavior, and bonds individuals through the belief that members won't take advantage of them. Members are more likely to take risks and expose vulnerabilities when they can trust others on their team. The overall level of trust in a team is important, but the way trust is dispersed among team members also matters. Trust levels that are asymmetric and imbalanced between team members can mitigate the performance advantages of a high overall level of trust—in such cases, coalitions form that often undermine the team as a whole. Trust is a perception that can be vulnerable to shifting conditions in a team environment. Also, trust is not unequivocally desirable. For instance, recent research in Singapore found that, in high-trust teams, individuals are less likely to claim and defend personal ownership of their ideas, but individuals who do still claim personal ownership are rated as lower contributors by team members. This "punishment" by the team may reflect resentments that create negative relationships, increased conflicts, and reduced performance.
Multiteam
a collection of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal; a team of teams example: car accident- ambulance, emergency room, recovery; goal = saving lives (Some factors that make smaller, more traditional teams effective do not necessarily apply to multiteam systems and can even hinder their performance. One study showed that multiteam systems performed better when they had "boundary spanners" whose jobs were to coordinate with members of the other subteams. This reduced the need for some team member communication, which was helpful because it reduced coordination demands. Leadership of multiteam systems is also much different than for standalone teams. While leadership of all teams affects team performance, a multiteam leader must both facilitate coordination between teams and lead each team. Research indicated teams that received more attention and engagement from the organization's leaders felt more empowered, which made them more effective as they sought to solve their own problems. In general, a multiteam system is the best choice either when a team has become too large to be effective, or when teams with distinct functions need to be highly coordinated.)
work team
a group whose individual efforts result in performance that is greater than the sum of the individual inputs
Self-managed work teams
are groups of employees (typically 10 to 15 in number) who perform highly related or interdependent jobs; these teams take on some supervisory responsibilities. (When these teams are established, former supervisory positions take on decreased importance and are sometimes eliminated.) (Research results on the effectiveness of self-managed work teams have not been uniformly positive. Some research indicates that self-managed teams may be more or less effective based on the degree to which team-promoting behaviors are rewarded. For example, one study of 45 self-managing teams found that when team members perceived that economic rewards such as pay were dependent on input from their teammates, performance improved for both individuals and the team as a whole. A second area of research focus has been the impact of conflict on self-managed work team effectiveness. Some research indicates that self-managed teams are not effective when there is conflict. When disputes arise, members often stop cooperating and power struggles ensue, which lead to lower group performance. However, other research indicates that when members feel confident they can speak up without being embarrassed, rejected, or punished by other team members—in other words, when they feel psychologically safe—conflict can be beneficial and boost team performance. Thirdly, research has explored the effect of self-managed work teams on member behavior. Here again the findings are mixed. Although individuals on teams report higher levels of job satisfaction than other individuals, studies indicate they sometimes have higher absenteeism and turnover rates. One large-scale study of labor productivity in British establishments found that although using teams improved individual (and overall) labor productivity, no evidence supported the claim that self-managed teams performed better than traditional teams with less decision-making authority. On the whole, it appears that for self-managing teams to be advantageous, a number of facilitating factors must be in place.)