Reframing Organizations 5th Edition
Chapter 5 – Organizing Groups & Teams
Seal Team 6
95
Real success of Seal Team 6 Red Squadron is the astonishing teamwork built into SEALS from the
beginning.
96
The Squadrons exist in a relatively simple structure
The chain of command from the JSOC Admiral to the operators is clear but very informal
Roles were interreliant, and lateral coordination was precise, achieved mainly through terse “seal talk”
and non‐verbal hand signals.
Nashville Transplant
97
Team members’ roles are clearly defined, but they have flexibility to cross boundaries to do what is
needed.
The more often team members work together, the greater chance for successful outcome. Building a
cohesive team is critical.
Main Chapter
Much of the work in organizations of every sort across the globe gets done in groups or teams. When
these units work well, they elevate performance of ordinary individuals to extraordinary heights. When
teams malfunction as too often happens, they erode the potential contributions of even the most
talented members.
What determines how ell groups perform – The performance of a small group depends heavily on
structure. A key ingredient of top‐notch team is an appropriate blueprint of roles and relationships set in
motion to attain common goals or missions.
98
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups
Groups must choose among a range of options to develop a structure that maximizes individuals
contributions while minimizing the chronic problems that plague small groups. The nature of the work
or task provides a key to shaping group structure. Tasks vary in clarity, predictability, and stability. The
task‐structure relationship in small groups is parallel to that in larger organizations.
Contextual Variables
Complex tasks present challenges different from those presented by simpler ones
Simple tasks align with the basic structures – Clearly defined roles, elementary forms of
interdependence, and coordination by plan or command.
Projects that are more complicated generally require forms that are more complex: Flexible roles,
reciprocal give‐and‐take, and synchronization through lateral dealings, and communal feedback.
If a situation becomes exceptionally ambigouous and fast‐paced, particularly when time is a factor,
groups may be unable to make decisions quickly enough without centrailized authority and tight scrpts.
Performance and morale suffer, and troubles multiply in groups that lack an appropriate structure.
99
Pertinent contextual (situational) variables [influencing structure]
What is our goal?
What actions are required?
Who should do what?
Who’s in charge?
How should we make decisions?
How do we coordinate efforts?
What do individual members care about most:
Time, quality, participation?
What are the special skills and talents of each group member?
What is the relationship between this group and others?
How will we determine success?
Fundamental Team Configurations
A high percentage of employee’s and managers’ time is spent in meetings and working groups of three
to twelve people.
One‐Boss Arrangement – One person has authority over others. Information and decisions flow from
the top. Group members offer information to and communicate primarily with the official leader rather
than with one another.
This array is efficient and fast and works best in relatively simple straightforward situations.
Circumstances that are more complicated over‐load the boss, producing delays or bad decisions
unless the person in charge has an unusual level of skill, expertise and energy.
Subordinates quickly become frustrated with directives that are late or out of touch.
Duel Authority – Crates a management level below the boss. Twi individuals have authority over specific
areas of the group’s work. Information and decisions flow through them.
This arrangement works when a task is divisible; it reduces the boss’s span of control, freeing up
time to concentrate on mission, strategy, or relationships with higher‐ups.
Adding a new layer limits access from the lower levels to the boss. Communication becomes
slower and more cumbersome and may eventually erode morale and performance.
101
Simple Hierarchy – with a middle manager who reports to the boss and, in turn supervises and
communicates with others. Similar arrangement at the Whitehouse.
Though this further limits access to the top, it can be more efficient than a duel‐manager
arrangement.
At the same time, friction between operational and top‐level managers is commonplace, and
number two make be tempted to usurp number one’s position.
Circle Network – Where information and decisions flow sequentially from one group member to
another. Each can add or modify whatever comes around.
This design relies solely on lateral coordination and simplifies communication.
Each person has to deal directing with only two others; transactions are there for easier
to manage. However, one weak link in the chain can undermine the entire enterprise.
The circle can bog down with complex tasks that require more reciprocity.
102
All‐Channel (Star) Network – This design, familiar to Team Six Operators is similar to Helgesen’s web of
inclusion.
It creates multiple connections so that each person can talk to anyone else. Information flows
freely; decisions sometimes require touching multiple bases. Morale is high. The arrangement works
well if a task is amorphous or complicated, requiring substantial mutual adjustment, but is slow and
inefficient for simpler undertakings. It works best when team members bring well‐developed
communication skills, enjoy participation, tolerate ambiguity, embrace diversity and are able to manage
conflict.
103
Teamwork and Interdependence
The formal network is critical to team functioning. In give and take large organizations things get
more complicated. Making the familiar strange helps the strange become familiar. Team sports
teamwork varies depending on the nature of the game.
104
Baseball
Baseball is a team game, but nine men who meet their individual goals make a nice team.
Loosely intergraded confederacy makes a team. Individual efforts are mostly autonomous,
seldom involving more than to or three players at a time. Loose connections reduce the need for
synchronization among the various positions. Individuals are often on their own. Managers’
decisions are mostly tactical, normally involving individual sub‐situations or actions. Mangers
come and go without seriously disrupting the teams’ play. A newcomer can do the job without
major retuning. It is essentially a lonely game.
Football
Structural configuration very different from baseball. Teams plan strategy for the next move.
Football players perform in proximity. Each play involves every player on the field. A
prearranged plan links effort sequentially. Efforts of individual players are tightly synchronized.
A football team is a lot like a machine. It’s made up of parts. If one part doesn’t work, one player
pulling against you and not doing his job, the whole machine fails. Tight connections among
parts require a football team to be well integrated, mainly though planning and top‐down
control. Each unit has its own coordinator. Use scouts to develop a strategy or game plan in
advance. The head coach typically makes strategic decisions. Assistants or designated players on
the field make tactical decisions. Tough to swap players from one team to another. Football
requires intricate strategy and tightly meshed execution.
105
Basketball
Players perform even closer proximity to one another than football players. Quick rapidly
moving transitions, offense becomes defense with the same players. Efforts of individuals are
reciprocal; each player depends on the performance of the others. Each may be involved with
any of the other four. Teams require a high level of spontaneous mutual adjustment. Everyone
is on the move, often in an emerging pattern rather than a predetermined course. Depends
heavily on the flowing relationship among team members who read and anticipate one
another’s moves. Players who play together a long time develop a sense of what their
teammates will do. A team of newcomers has trouble adjusting to individual predispositions or
quirks. Coaches serve as integrators. Their periodic interventions reinforce team cohesion,
helping plyers coordinate laterally on the move. It is a wholly harmonized group effort. Group
interdependence and cohesion are important, players can anticipate the actions of others. “I”
deferred to the collective “we”
106
Determinants of successful teamwork – Structural profiles of successful teams depend on the game.
What a team is trying to do.
Important questions in designing an appropriate structure.
What is the nature and degree of dealings among individuals?
What is the spatial distribution of unit members?
Where does authority reside?
How are efforts integrated?
Which word best describes the required structure:
Conglomerate ‐ thing consisting of a number of different and distinct parts or items that
are grouped together.
Mechanistic ‐ the organization is hierarchical and bureaucratic. It is characterized by its
(1) highly centralized authority, (2) formalized procedures and practices, and (3)
specialized functions
Organic ‐ (1) Flatness: communications and interactions are horizontal, (2) Low
specialization: knowledge resides wherever it is most useful, and (3) Decentralization:
great deal of formal and informal participation in decision making. Organic organizations
are comparatively more complex and harder to form, but are highly adaptable, flexible,
and more suitable where external environment is rapidly changing and is unpredictable.
Also called open organizations, they are contrasted with mechanistic organizations.
Appropriate team structures can vary, even within the same organization
107
Doing the right job requires a structure or structures well suited to what you’re trying to
accomplish.
Team Structure and top performance – The right structure enhances team performance.
Clear distinction between undifferentiated groups and Sharpley focused teams.
A team is a small number of people with complimentary skills who are committed to a common
purpose, set of performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves mutually
accountable.
Six distinguish characteristics of high‐quality teams
High‐Performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or an opportunity placed in
their path, usually by higher management. Top Managers clarify the team’s charter, rationale,
and challenge while giving the team flexibility to work out goals and plans of operation. By
giving a team clear authority and then staying out of the way, management releases collective
energy and creativity.
High‐Performing teams translate common purpose into specific measurable goals. Purpose
yields an overall mission, but successful teams take the additional step of recasting purpose into
specific and measurable performance goals. If a team fails to establish specific performance
goals or if those goals do not relate directly to the team’s overall purpose, team members
become confused, pull apart and revert to mediocre performance. By contrast when purpose
and goals are built on one another and are combined with team commitment, they become a
powerful engine of performance.
108
High‐performing teams develop the fight mix of expertise. The structural frame stresses the
critical link between specialization and expertise. Effective teams seak out the full range of
necessary technical fluency. In addition, exemplary teams find and reward expertise in problem
solving, decision‐making, and interpersonal skills to keep the group focused on task and free of
debilitating personal squabbles.
High‐Performing teams develop a common commitment to working relationships. Team
members must agree on who will do particular jobs, how schedules will be set and adhered to,
what skills need to be developed, how continuing membership in the team is to be earned, and
how the group will make and modify decisions. Effective teams take time to explore who is best
suited for a particular task as well as how individual roles come together. It takes more than an
organizational chart to identify roles and pinpoint one’s place in the official pecking order and
layout of responsibilities. Most teams require a clear understanding of who is going to do what
and how people relate to each other in carrying out diverse tasks. An effective team “establishes
a social contract among members that relates to their purpose and guides and obligates how
they will work together.
Members of high‐performing teams hold themselves collectively accountable. Pinpointing
individual responsibility is crucial to a well‐coordinated effort, a common purpose and approach
inevitably hold themselves responsible, both as individuals and as a team for the team’s
performance. “Common error in creating teams: Teams often get launched in a vacuum, with
little or no training to help communication between teams. Frustrations mount, and people
wind up expected to do”. A focused, cohesive structure is a fundamental underpinning for high‐
performing teams. Even highly skilled people zealously pursuing a shared mission will falter and
fail if group structure constantly generates inequity, confusion and frustration.
109
Self‐Managing Teams: structure of the Future?
Self‐managing work teams are groups of employees with the following characteristics:
They manage themselves (plan, organize, control, staff & monitor)
They assign jobs to members (decide who works on what, where & when)
They pan and schedule work (control start‐up and ending times, the place of work and goal
setting)
They make production or service related decisions (take responsibility for inventory, quality
control decisions and work stoppage).
They take action to remedy problems (address quality issues, customer service needs, and
member discipline and rewards).
Self‐directed teams typically produce better results and higher morale than groups operating
under more traditional top‐down control. Getting such teams started and giving them the
resources they need to be effective is a complex undertaking.
110
Saturn Project ‐ Its human resource practices emphasized training, conflict management and
extensive employee participation (Saturn Project). Employees had authority to make team decisions
within a few flexible guidelines. Restrictive rules and ironclad, top‐down work procedures were left
behind.
111
Teams designed their own working relationships. Prior to the beginning of a shift, team
members conferred in a team center for five or ten minutes. They determined the day’s rotation. A
team of ten would have ten jobs to do and typically rotated through them, except that the rotation was
more frequent for jobs involving heavy lifting or stress. Every week the plant shut down to let teams
review quality standards, budget, safety and the ergonomics of assembly.
Group accountability became and accepted way of life. If the company met its performance
objectives, everyone gained. If not, they all shared the loss. The idea of self‐governing teams showed the
way for many companies that are now adopting similar practices.
112
Conclusion
Every group evolves a structure that may help or hinder effectiveness. Conscious attention to
lines of authority, communication, responsibilities, and relationships can make a huge difference in
group performance. A team structure emphasizing hierarchy and top‐down control tends to work well
for simple, stable tasks. As work becomes more complex or the environment gets more turbulent,
structure must also develop more multifaceted and lateral forms of communication and coordination.
Many teams never learn a key to getting structure right: Vary the structure in response to
changes in task and circumstance. Make sure you know the game you’re in and the field on which you’re
playing. Organization and team structures can be complex but can be understood and adjusted. Leaders
must recognize when the rules of the game change and redesign structure accordingly
Chapter 5 PowerPoint















Reframing Organizations, 4th ed.
Chapter 5
Organizing Groups and Teams
The Power of Teams
Teams are vital to organizational performance
 Transplant surgeon Peter Minnich: the team is as important as the surgeon
 High‐performance commando team: fluid, lateral structure for planning, top‐down
structure for execution
Top‐performing teams need the right blueprint of roles and relationships
Organizing Groups and Teams
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups
Teamwork and Interdependence
Determinants of Successful Teamwork
Team Structure and Top Performance
Saturn: The Story Behind the Story
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups
Structural Options
Situational Variables Influencing Structure
 What is our goal?
 What needs to be done?
 Who should do what?
 How should we make decisions?














 Who is in charge?
 How do we coordinate efforts?
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups (II)
Situational Variables, con’t.
 What do individuals care about most?
 Time
 Quality
 Participation
 What are special skill and talents of members?
 What is the relationship between groups?
 How will we determine success?
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups (III)
Basic Structural Configurations
 One Boss
 Dual Authority
 Simple Hierarchy
 Circle Network
 All Channel Network
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups (III)
Basic Structural Configurations
 One Boss
 Dual Authority
 Simple Hierarchy
 Circle Network
 All Channel Network
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups (III)
Basic Structural Configurations
 One Boss
 Dual Authority
 Simple Hierarchy
 Circle Network
 All Channel Network
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups (III)
Basic Structural Configurations
 One Boss
 Dual Authority
 Simple Hierarchy
 Circle Network
 All Channel Network
Tasks and Linkages in Small Groups (III)
Basic Structural Configurations
 One Boss
 Dual Authority
 Simple Hierarchy
 Circle Network
 All Channel Network
Teamwork and Interdependence
Baseball


















Football
Basketball
Determinants of Successful Teamwork
Determining an appropriate structural design
 Nature and degree of task interaction
 Geographic distribution of members
 Where is autonomy needed, given the team’s goals and objectives?
 Should structure be conglomerate, mechanistic, or organic?
 Task of management:
 fill out line‐up card
 prepare game plan
 Influence flow
Team Structure and Top Performance
Six distinguishing characteristics of high‐performing teams
 Shape purpose in response to a demand or opportunity
 Specific, measurable goals
 Manageable size
 Right mix of expertise
 Common commitment
 Collectively accountable
Saturn: The Story Behind the Story
Quality, Consumer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty
Employees granted authority
Assembly done by teams – Wisdom of Teams
Group Accountability
Conclusion
Every group evolves a structure, but not always one that fits task and circumstances
Hierarchy, top‐down tend to work for simple, stable tasks
When task or environment is more complex, structure needs to adapt
Sports images provide a metaphor for structural options
Vary the structure in response to change
Few groups have flawless members; the right structure can make optimal use of available
resources