Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD [email protected].

31
Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD [email protected]
  • date post

    20-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    232
  • download

    3

Transcript of Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD [email protected].

Page 1: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Groups & TeamsFrances Jørgensen, PhD

[email protected]

Page 2: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

What is a group or team?– Group: A collection of individuals whose existence as a

collection is rewarding to the individuals (Bass, 1960); Two or more person with some common purpose or goal, a relatively stable structure with hierarchy, and an established set of roles or patterns of interaction. Members see themselves and each other as members.

– A unique combination of 2 or more persons who interact interdependently and adaptively to achieve specific, shared,

and valued objectives

Page 3: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Why do we join

groups?

Security, power, to reach goals we couldn’t attain alone, self-esteem…

Page 4: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

All teams are groups, but are all groups teams?

(Campbell & Campbell, 1988)

• Groups become teams when : – they are autonomous and have clear

responsibilities to differentiate them from other teams or groups (Campbell & Campbell, 1988);

– They are heterogeneous (Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991);– members have a balanced range of characteristics

(Belbin, 1981); – targeted group performance is greater than expected

individual performance; when they have between 5-10 members (Bales & Borgatta, 1956).

Page 5: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Types of Groups & Teams

Formal Informal

Part of organizational structure Evolve in response to interests (not deliberate)

Clear hierarchy Develop own rules & norms

Can: lead to faster execution of changes (more flexibility due to increased communication and involvement); increased knowledge sharing & learning; increased consistency with organizational strategy and design

May promote or frustrate organizational goals (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939; Shaw, 1976)

Higher commitment to decisions

Page 6: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Types of Groups & Teams

Football team, neighborhood group, project groups, management teams, production groups, cross-functional groups, virtual teams, improvement groups (quality circles)….

Work Teams can be described in terms of…

– Cross-functional & Cross-dimensional– Self-directive/managing and autonomous– Ad-hoc or permanent– Parallel or Integrated with production

Page 7: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

History of Groups

• Earliest times• 1890: James studies psychological processes of

groups & social identity• 1940’s: Hawthorne Plant studies demonstrate

that group processes have an effect on production

• 1950’s-60’s: Socio-technical perspective first introduced

• 1990’s-current: 80% of companies with > 100 employees have >50% in at least 1 team (Katzenbach, 1998)

Page 8: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Group Development• Forming: testing & forming dependencies: defining of

(un)acceptble bx; characterized by high uncertainty, politeness, low commitment

• Storming: indiv. “fight” for position; role development; characterized by intragroup conflict and formations of dyads and cliques

• Norming: development of group cohesion; acceptance of fellow members; defining of purpose; characterized by high levels of trust

• Performing: functional job relatedness; role differentiation; task specification; facilitation of goal attainment; characterized by feeling “we are special”.

• Adjourning?

(Tuckman, 1965)

Page 9: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Where is your “team”

• Group exercise based on Tuckman’s Team Development Model (in class handouts)

Page 10: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.
Page 11: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Team Structure

• Size: inversely related to satisfaction (Porter & Lawler, 1965) & attendance (Steers & Rhodes, 1978)– Optimal 5-9– Affect performance

• Norms: characterize behavior viewed important to the group, develop gradually or when new situations arise, don’t always apply to all members (Hackman, 1976); affect performance– Norm breakers are ultimately isolated (Janis, 1972);

• Cohesion: closeness of the group which leads to maintenance of membership, power of group over members, participation and loyalty, satisfaction, productivity ??? (Cartwright & Zander, 1968)– Lack of cohesion leads to lowered productivity (Katz & Kahn,

1978)

Page 12: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

TeamTeamCohesivenessCohesiveness

MemberSimilarity

MemberInteraction

TeamSize

SomewhatDifficult Entry

TeamSuccess

ExternalChallenges

Causes of Team Cohesiveness

Page 13: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Team Norms Team Norms Support Support Firm’sFirm’sGoalsGoals

Team Norms Team Norms Oppose Oppose Firm’sFirm’sGoalsGoals

High Team High Team CohesivenessCohesiveness

Low Team Low Team CohesivenessCohesiveness

Cohesiveness and Performance

Low TaskPerformance

ModeratelyHigh Task

Performance

ModeratelyLow Task

Performance

HighTask

Performance

Page 14: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Group Structure & Performance

British Coal Mine Studies (Trist & Bamforth, 1951)

– Prenationalization• Low mechanization; 6 man teams, shared mining

tasks, task rotation

– Post nationalization• Long wall production introduced, new technology

(high job specialization, lower job training costs), individual work replaced teams, increased tech. problems, increased absenteeism, increased strikes, lower productivity

Page 15: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Miner’s solution

• “Composite long wall method”– New technology, old style work groups

• Developed new shift groups (forming)• Task differentiation between members & groups

(storming)• Set group performance goals (norming)

Production increased (performing)

Page 16: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Why did performance fall with the long wall method?

• First consider the coal miner’s job!

• Increased job specialization and replacement of small groups led to lower cohesion– Elimination of formal groups led to more

informal groups, which lacked performance norms and fostered hostility towards organization

Page 17: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Considerations BEFORE organizing teams

• Autonomy (hiring/firing, decisions, budget)• Task interdependence & congruence• Size (small enough & large enough)• Flexibility (work, pay)• History & traditions• Accessible space, equipment, information• Management & monitoring should promote team

autonomy and responsibility• Reward system congruent with teamwork• Maintenance & development• Technological changes• Management & Organizational support

Page 18: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

To do or not to do?

• When tasks to not require coordination, an individual strategy is often “best”

• When coordination is a must and individual contribution is difficult to measure, a team approach is often appropriate.

Page 19: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Advantages DisadvantagesWider range of knowledge, expertise,

ideasBlocking (1 person talks all the time)

Lower manpower needs Dominant people (1= 40&; 2= 20%; rest <10%)

Effective way to make better decisions and consensus regarding

the decisions

Status inequity (wrong person deciding/talking)

Effective way of communicating complex or much information

Motivation (social loafing)

Better understanding during implementation

Coordination (generally slower)

Fewer errors (increased quality) Abilene Paradox

Reduced waste Group think

Managerial flexibility

Page 20: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Meredith Belbins Team Roles

Idea Generator

Networker

Finisher

Implementer

Coordinator

Mover & Shaker

Teamworker

Evaluator

Specialist

Which are you? What are the consequences of different team configurations?

Page 21: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Problems with groups & teams

• Abilene Paradox: members act in contradiction to what they really want; each person defers to another, even though they disagree.

• Group Think: members support consensus and discourage disagreement to the point where only those in agreement remain in the group. A habit of agreement develops and attitudes of “we are right; they are wrong” prevent new ideas and counter arguments.

Page 22: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Team Building

• Emphasize shared goals & values• Use ceremonies & rituals & symbolize team identity• Strengthen social relationships• Inform about activities and results• Analyze group processes regularly• Strive for (real) consensus in meetings • Tolerate and encourage differences• Reward cooperation

(Yukl, p. 371)• Provide relevant development (Goals, Roles, Process:

communication, problem-solving, conflict resolution)• Ropes, etc.

Page 23: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Team Learning

• Team learning = Team Skill (Senge, 1990)

• Cross-functional teams

• Job rotation

• Workouts (G.E., 1989): customers, managers, suppliers, and teams have 2-3 day intensive problem-solving sessions

• Action learning (Lewin, 1940’s)

• Succession planning

Page 24: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Harley Davidson & SMWTs

• 1983: HD on fast ride to disaster: loss of creditors, sales continuing to drop and employee moral in the pits.

• Who wouldn’t want to be a part of HD leadership? HD instills sense of ownership with a shared leadership model

Page 25: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

– 1) There is no “quick fix”.– 2) Leadership is not a person, but a

process to which every employee must contribute.

– 3) People are a corporations only sustainable competitive advantage.

Managements Guidelines for Change

Page 26: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Why SWTWs at HD?

• Company benefits– Cross trained employees (flexibility)– Increased communications– Streamlining, flattens organizations, and gets

rid of unnecessary processes– 20-40% gains in productivity after 18 months

for most companies

Page 27: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

And for the teams?

• More job variety; opportunity to learn more/other skills

• More input into the job, job responsibility and sense of ownership from completing a full HD (see job enrichment model!)

Page 28: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Transformation to Self Managed Teams

• Training in three specific areas should be addressed– 1) Technical- Cross training of all members of the

team in various technical skill sets.– 2) Administrative- Employees must learn skills

such as monitoring, reporting procedures and hiring/firing.

– 3) Interpersonal Skills- Communication among all members must occur more effectively in order to make the team as efficient as possible.

Page 29: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

The Stages of Transition to Self-Managed Teams

(the HD model)• Stage 1: Start-up

– “Honeymoon Phase,” intensive training for all involved.

• Stage 2: State of Confusion– Employees are having problems adapting

at this stage– Many secretly hope transition effort will

collapse.

Page 30: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

Transition Continued…

• Stage 3: Leader-Centered Teams– Confidence grows as new skills are learned– One team member steps forward as internal

leader, production increases dramatically.• Stage 4: Tightly Formed Teams

– Teams working at high level of efficiency, but may withhold info and assistance from other teams to make themselves look better.

• Stage 5: Self-Directed Teams– Mature teams develop a powerful commitment to

achieving corporate and team goals.

Page 31: Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

2001 Forbes Company of the Year

• 2001 sales grew 15% to 3.3 billion

• Company earnings grew 26% to 435 million

• Stock up 40% in 2001

• Since 1986, Harley has averaged annual earnings growth of 37%