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

download Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

of 31

  • date post

    20-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    219
  • download

    3

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Groups & Teams Frances Jørgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk.

  • Slide 1
  • Groups & Teams Frances Jrgensen, PhD frances@plan.aau.dk
  • Slide 2
  • 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
  • Slide 3
  • Why do we join groups? Security, power, to reach goals we couldnt attain alone, self-esteem
  • Slide 4
  • 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).
  • Slide 5
  • Types of Groups & Teams FormalInformal Part of organizational structureEvolve in response to interests (not deliberate) Clear hierarchyDevelop 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
  • Slide 6
  • 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
  • Slide 7
  • History of Groups Earliest times 1890: James studies psychological processes of groups & social identity 1940s: Hawthorne Plant studies demonstrate that group processes have an effect on production 1950s-60s: Socio-technical perspective first introduced 1990s-current: 80% of companies with > 100 employees have >50% in at least 1 team (Katzenbach, 1998)
  • Slide 8
  • 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)
  • Slide 9
  • Where is your team Group exercise based on Tuckmans Team Development Model (in class handouts)
  • Slide 10
  • Slide 11
  • 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, dont 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)
  • Slide 12
  • TeamCohesiveness Member Similarity Member Interaction Team Size Somewhat Difficult Entry Team Success External Challenges Causes of Team Cohesiveness
  • Slide 13
  • Team Norms Support Firms Goals Team Norms Oppose Firms Goals High Team Cohesiveness Low Team Cohesiveness Cohesiveness and Performance Low Task Performance Moderately High Task Performance Moderately Low Task Performance High Task Performance
  • Slide 14
  • 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
  • Slide 15
  • Miners 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)
  • Slide 16
  • Why did performance fall with the long wall method? First consider the coal miners 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
  • Slide 17
  • 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
  • Slide 18
  • 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.
  • Slide 19
  • AdvantagesDisadvantages Wider range of knowledge, expertise, ideas Blocking (1 person talks all the time) Lower manpower needs Dominant people (1= 40&; 2= 20%; rest