|
|
|
Abstract
What is a team? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having teams in organizations? What does it take to make a team effective? This paper examines the theme of effectiveness in teams. A work group is defined as a group of individuals who are seen by themselves and others as a social entity, which is interdependent because of the tasks performed as members of a group. First, the paper briefly examines the advantages and potential pitfalls of having teams in an organization. Then, three models of work group effectiveness are presented. These models are from Campion, Guzzo and Hackman. Implications of these models for teams are discussed, and then the models are synthesized into a checklist of characteristics needed for effective teams.
Work Teams:Three Models of Effectiveness
Groups became a new focus of attention in the 1940‘s after the Hawthorne studies were published (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). One of the discoveries outlined in that report is that informal work groups are formed by workers inside of classic Theory X organizations. In recent years the use of work teams in organizations has been increasing substantially, and this trend is expected to continue (Katzenbach, 1998). Eighty percent of organizations with over 100 employees report 50% of their employees are in at least one team (Beyerlein & Harris, 1998). To remain competitive, it is important for organizations to create and maintain teams which are as effective as possible.
A work team will be defined for the purposes of this paper by a definition borrowed from Guzzo (1986) as follows. A team is a group of individuals who see themselves and are seen by others as a social entity, which is interdependent because of the tasks performed as members of a group. They are embedded in one or more larger social systems, performing tasks that affect others. The key to work teams is that they are interdependent, and this is the major factor that distinguishes a "team" from a "group," although both terms will be used in this paper.
There are many advantages to having self-managed work teams in organizations. Teams can enable a company to execute more quickly, and changes are made more easily, allowing the company flexibility (Mohrman, Cohen & Mohrman, 1995). This is due in part to increased communication and employee involvement in decision-making. Information flow is better because of increased communication and horizontal, rather than just vertical flow of information. Because of this, consistency in organizational environment, strategy and design is increased (West, Borril & Unsworth, 1998).
Each member of a group adds more information, perspective, experience and competencies (Gmelch, 1984). Organizations as a whole are able to learn more effectively as well as retain gained knowledge. If each member participates in problem solving, the potential ways a problem can be solved is increased. Employees also feel better about decisions they make themselves, and are more likely to stick to the implementations that they have created for themselves, as opposed to those forced upon them (West, et al., 1998). Also, there is a reduction in communication difficulties and in supervision needs if the same group of people implements the solution that solved it (Gmelch, 1983). It is also more cost effective to have teams, while retaining high quality (West et al., 1998). Businesses report improved productivity, safety, absenteeism, employee attitude and cost quality when teams are implemented (Beyerlein & Harris, 1998). There are also many other advantages to having teams that are not listed above.
However, not every organization or task is best organized in a team-based model. Companies who should not implement teams include those who view this as an organizational strategy to down-size, those who will not plan for or institute a nurturing climate where teams can thrive, or those who will not take the time to design and support teams properly (Johnson, 1998).
Even organizations that are better served by a team model find disadvantages. These include an increase in time to communicate, poor communication between members and groups, poor coordination between group members, and competing objectives (West, et al., 1998). Some self-managed teams never reach their full potential or fail to be functional altogether, because they were not set up correctly and the other aforementioned negative results occur. Other teams increase productivity and quality in organizations. There are many potential risks and opportunities involved in a team-based organization. What characteristics, then, are essential to having effective teams?
Effectiveness can be defined according to Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993) in terms of productivity, employee and customer satisfaction and manager judgements. According to that model job design, interdependence, composition, context and process are the themes that contribute to the above effectiveness criteria.
See Campion’s (1993) Model of Effectiveness
Campion Model
Job design refers to the themes relating to motivation, including self-management, participation, task variety, task significance, and task identity (Hackman, 1990). Self-management enhances effectiveness by increasing responsibility and ownership because all members participate in decision-making. Employees who implement their own ideas are more likely to feel ownership and implement ideas aggressively (Johnson, 1998). Task variety and participation allow each member in the group to perform a number of tasks, motivating members to use different skills, as well as rotating less desirable tasks. Effectiveness is also increased when members of the group feel their work has repercussions outside of the group. This concept is called task significance. Finally, task identity is necessary, meaning "the degree to which a group completes a whole and separate task (Campion, et al., pg. 826, 1993)."
Interdependence is one of the most crucial elements for teams to exist and to be effective. One form of this is task interdependence, which involves members of the team depending on one another to accomplish goals. Goal interdependence refers not only to a group having a goal, but also to the fact that group member’s goals should be linked. Interdependent feedback and rewards are necessary, as all of the interdependency characteristics, to promote motivation in the team.
Another component of the Campion, et al. (1993) model is the Composition of groups, which includes heterogeneity in both experiences and abilities. Heterogeneity contributes to effectiveness due to the possibility of group members learning from each other, thereby increasing flow of information. Flexibility of job assignments allows workers to fill in where needed, so absence of a member does not create delays or chaos. Relative size means that groups should be large enough to get work done, but not too large for coordination or involvement of members. Also, employees who have a preference for group work are expected to add cohesiveness to the group composition.
Context is essential in effective work groups and includes training in various areas from how groups should function to technical knowledge. Another contextual component is managerial support. It is important that managers act not as traditional managers, but as supporters of the group without undermining it. It is also crucial that top management is supportive of the team, or it will eventually be devoured by the organization (Katzenbach, 1998). Lastly, communication and cooperation between groups are essential. Groups should be integrated with the rest of the organization by maintaining effective dialogue with other groups. Often, one employee is a member of a number of various related groups.
The final characteristic of Campion’s model is Process, which describes the inter-workings and social interaction of a group. Potency falls under this category, and refers to the "belief by a group that it can be effective" (Campion et al., pg. 830, 1993). This is further discussed later in the paper. Social support is the part of process that includes members having positive social interaction by helping each other, thereby making boring tasks more interesting. Another task which helps keep motivation up is workload sharing.
Campion et al. (1993) have tested the above model in an empirical study and found that almost all of the design characteristics of work groups listed above related to the three criteria of effectiveness (also outlined above.) Potency was found to be the strongest predictor of all characteristics and related to all three effectiveness criteria, thus supporting those who assert that it is one of the most important characteristics of a work team (Guzzo, Campbell & Shea, 1993). This issue is further discussed later in this paper.
Hackman Model
Many of Campion’s ideas outlined above can be traced back to work done by Richard Hackman, who has slightly different views of effectiveness. Hackman’s definition of effectiveness is defined in a three dimensional definition: the group’s output meeting quality standards, the group’s ability to work interdependently in the future, and the growth and well being of team members (Hackman, 1990). This definition is much more complex than Campion’s in that it looks at both social and personal criteria in a more in-depth way. Hackman’s model of effectiveness, summarized in Table 2 below, is also more complex than the Campion model in that it offers more than simple input-output relationships. Hackman offers the advice that no strategy for performance will work equally well for different teams, and teams will create their own reality. Focus should be on setting up conditions favorable to allow success in the team. What, then, are the conditions for effectiveness?
See Hackman’s (1986) Model for Enhancing Group Task Effectiveness
The first element in Hackman prescribes is clear, engaging direction which implies that although tasks are clear, they should also allow room for the group to "tailor the objectives to fit with member’s own inclinations" (Hackman & Walton, pg. 81, 1986.) The success or failure to achieve goals should be a direct consequence of the group’s actions, and it should be clear to the group that their work will have a substantial impact on organizations. This creates an environment where members will experience personal growth and feel more empowered as a result of having more responsibility.
Hackman’s second ingredient for success is an enabling performance situation. He sites three general conditions that must be surmounted for a team to be successful. The first of the triad of the process criteria is ample effort to accomplish the task at hand in an acceptable manner. The second is that members have sufficient knowledge and skills and the third hurdle is the employment of task-appropriate performance strategies. When there is a problem in the group, these three criteria can be examined to determine what is wrong- effort, talent and strategy problems constitute major flaws in groups, preventing effectiveness.
The three points of leverage that Hackman identifies are a group structure that promotes competent work on the task, an organizational context that supports and reinforces excellence, and available coaching and process assistance. The first, a group structure that promotes competent work on the task, has three components. Firstly, the task structure must be clear and provide motivating potential (Hackman and Oldman, 1980). The Group Composition must be correct. The group must be the correct size (not too large or small), contain the correct talents, and have members heterogeneous enough to learn from one another. At the same time, there should exist core norms that regulate member behavior. This allows activities among members to be coordinated, behavior to be regulated and planning of strategies to be active (Hackman, 1986).
The second point of leverage Hackman discusses is an organizational context that supports and reinforces excellence. This entails a reward system, which provides team recognition for excelling without giving individuals incentives to "break apart" from the group. The context also includes providing the group with an educational system so members can expand their knowledge, skills and abilities. An information system will provide the group with the data it needs to set goals.
Available, expert coaching and process assistance should be in place to direct members how to operate interdependently with others on the team, as this is a very crucial yet difficult skill to attain. Specific areas that should be focused on by coaches and assistants include promoting individual effort through motivation and appropriate assessment of individuals and ideas. Creating and implementing ideas appropriately is also important. Managers and consultants can be of help wherever experts on team functioning are needed (Hackman, 1990).
It is clear in the above model that Hackman has both intermediate and ultimate indicators of group effectiveness, which makes clear that the connection between processes and outcomes is not always certain. According to Guzzo (1986), this is especially important in decision-making. For example, a group can make mistakes in decision-making and still adopt a plan that is beneficial. Likewise the reverse is true; a group with an excellent decision-making process can adopt inferior solutions.
Guzzo Model
Guzzo’s model (Guzzo, 1986) differs considerably from the two aforementioned models. He does, however, define effectiveness in the same general terms that Hackman does. In his view, effectiveness is defined by measurable group-produced outputs, consequences the group has for members and the enhancement of a team’s capability to perform well in the future. His model, as depicted in Figure 3, shows the three variables he considers essential for effectiveness: task interdependence, outcome interdependence and potency. These three variables, through task-related interaction, affect the group’s task effectiveness and can be influenced by either group members or people outside the group. In this model, task-related interaction process refers specifically to the behaviors of members that directly or indirectly affect task accomplishment.
See Guzzo’s (1984) Model for Group Task Effectiveness
Task interdependence means the amount of task-required cooperation in a group. When a group is high in task-interdependence members must share resources in order to attain goals and their actions are closely coordinated. When task interdependence is low, members work more independently (without collaboration). It is important that tasks the group undertakes are not over- or under-orchestrated. Then, members become more involved in the outcomes, creating a sense of ownership (Mohrman et al., 1995).
Outcome interdependence is influenced in part by task interdependence and refers to the "degree to which important rewards are contingent on group performance (Guzzo, 1986)." A group with a high level of outcome interdependence has the most valuable rewards given because of group accomplishments as opposed to individual achievement. Rewards that are distributed non-competitively when the group is high in task interdependence are expected to increase effectiveness because of the cohesion this fosters. It should be noted that rewards are provided by a source outside of the group itself (Hall & Harris, 1998).
The third and possibly most significant variable in Guzzo’s model of effectiveness is potency. As mentioned above, this refers to the belief held by a group that it can be effective, and it is characterized by a sense of likely success and ability to meet challenges (Guzzo, Campbell & Shea 1993). Potency is affected by several variables including management support, availability of resources, knowledge of past effectiveness and perceptions of fellow members as being skilled and competent. Potency is a variable that is linked to performance by the feedback a group receives. Positive feedback from management and customers may cause a group to believe it will be more effective in the future (Hall & Harris, 1998).
Guzzo and Campbell (1990) have found that groups that are characterized as having a strong sense of potency tend to be effective. Potency can be used as an indicator of effectiveness (Guzzo et al., 1993), but it is possible that groups with high esteem can make bad or ineffective decisions (Guzzo, 1986). However, when combined with the alignment of team goals with organizational goals, rewards for team accomplishments and availability of resources, potency can be an excellent predictor of team effectiveness (Guzzo & Campbell, 1990).
In Guzzo’s model of effectiveness, task interdependence, outcome interdependence and potency all combine to determine how the task-related interactions in groups works. All three of these characteristics must be present in the correct amount; for example, if a group is working on a project that does not require cooperation among group members (low task interdependence), they will most likely not be effective. If rewards are distributed to individuals on a team based on their individual performance (low outcome interdependence), the group is expected to be ineffective. Also, if group members perceive their fellow members as being incompetent (low potency), the group will likely not meet performance standards. Therefore, it is important that all three of Guzzo’s criteria for effectiveness be met.
Guzzo and Dickson (1996) have also outlined other issues relevant to work-group effectiveness. These include team cohesiveness, composition, performance, leadership, motivation, and group goals. These issues can be applied to almost any team doing almost any kind of work. An analysis of these variables can help one determine whether or not a group is effective. The most important variable however in determining effectiveness is potency.
Implications for Work Group Design
If models of effectiveness can be directly related to designing work groups, practical contribution is made to groups. This information is useful to managers and consultants setting up groups, and members of existing groups. Although the above three models are all unique, they all either implicitly or explicitly offer ways to set up and utilize groups to be an effective part of an organization.
In Campion’s model, input characteristics such as job design, composition and context can all be manipulated by managers and group members. Identifying these "malleable" characteristics is the first important step in learning how to design effective groups. The second step is to develop a checklist of sorts of necessary characteristics. This is done in this paper below; characteristics from the above models of effectiveness were compiled to create a generic list. Finally, it is useful to compare the design characteristics of a specific group to measures of effectiveness such as productivity and employee and customer satisfaction periodically to ensure that the group remains effective over time.
Synthesis of Models:
Campion, Guzzo and Hackman all have models of effectiveness that are moderately different. However, the following characteristics are found or are inferred in all three models, and could be used as a checklist of sorts to ensure all of the vital pieces are in place, allowing for a group to become a team and to be highly successful. The social environment a group should be open and supportive, without authority directed problem solving. Group members should feel that they are equals with others on the team, and there should be an underlying commitment to team performance rather than individual performance. However, this does not mean members should all have the same abilities. A group is more effective when there is a variety of people with different experiences and areas of expertise. Strong interpersonal relationships should be a focus, so the group can function more openly, sharing knowledge and experience.
The environment of the group should also be supportive, with a focus on learning. A variety of educational tools, including experts in the field should be readily available to the team to assist in problem solving. Obviously, communication is also very important between group members and those outside the group.
An underlying feeling that the team will be successful in accomplishing the goals they have set is an essential part of the social surrounding. This element of potency is defined as critical in all three models of effectiveness.
Participation should be emphasized and all ideas should be listened to without domination by a strong group member or by a supervisor. Some groups find it helpful to have a devil’s advocate, who constantly reminds the group of how things could go wrong, thereby keeping the group open to creativity and thinking everything through thoroughly (Manz & Sims, 1993).
The team should have clearly defined goals to which all team members are committed. The group itself should set the goals; they should not be imposed upon the group by a supervisor. The individuals in the group should also have goals, which are linked to the group’s goals so the members work together in achieving. This is referred to by Campion et al. (1993) as goal interdependence. An underlying theme is that the team has the ability and desire to accomplish these goals.
One way to ensure motivation is the use of rewards. It is stressed that reward should be given in a manner that promotes team cohesiveness. If given in the correct manner, they will likely increase potency, or the belief that the team will perform effectively in the future. Potency can be linked to various other factors including both internal factors (member skills and abilities) and external factors (reputation, resources, leadership).
Leadership should be a shared group responsibility, not a delegated position. Each member should feel responsible for the team goals and they should also feel that the task at hand is important and will have an impact outside of the team. Because team members have different skills and abilities, the leadership role will likely change as the goals and dynamics of the team changes. Also, it is critical that the team is self-managed; management may act as a facilitator, but should not undermine the goals and direction the group has made for itself.
Conclusion
Although teams are not appropriate for every organization or project, they do have many advantages. These include increased flexibility, better information flow and higher quality outputs. Campion (1993), Hackman (1986) and Guzzo (1984) all offer models of effectiveness in teams. Although they differ in many respects, key aspects can be drawn out of them to create a checklist of sorts to ensure teams are effective. Of these factors, potency is the most important but is not sufficient alone in determining effectiveness.
Future studies should focus on the ways team change over time. Perhaps, different measures of effectiveness or various group design characteristics are more applicable in teams that have been functioning longer than in younger teams or groups that have been recently established. More also needs to be known about how design characteristics such as potency and interdependence can actually be affected by managers and team members when groups are being set up or are newly established.
It would also be very useful to do more research in how different types of teams such as knowledge teams, managing teams or factory floor work teams can be better served by which models of effectiveness. Do particular models better serve certain teams? There are many areas that can and will be explored as businesses are striving to be more efficient and successful, and as groups continue to be an excellent means of producing.
References