Thomas Jørgensen QPR2014 - European doctoral education, a silent revolution
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].
Groups & TeamsFrances Jørgensen, PhD
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
Why do we join
groups?
Security, power, to reach goals we couldn’t attain alone, self-esteem…
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).
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
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
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)
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)
Where is your “team”
• Group exercise based on Tuckman’s Team Development Model (in class handouts)
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)
TeamTeamCohesivenessCohesiveness
MemberSimilarity
MemberInteraction
TeamSize
SomewhatDifficult Entry
TeamSuccess
ExternalChallenges
Causes of Team Cohesiveness
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
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
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)
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
– 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
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
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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%