UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
THESIS
TINA PULKO
UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
THESIS
CHALLENGES OF INEXPERIENCED, SELFDIRECTED WORK TEAMS ON THEIR WAY TO THE
HIGH PERFORMANCE
Ljubljana, June 2009
TINA PULKO
IZJAVA
Študentka Tina Pulko izjavljam, da sem avtorica tega diplomskega dela, ki sem ga napisala
pod mentorstvom profesorja dr. Roberta Kašeta in profesorja Johna Phelana, in da dovolim
njegovo objavo na fakultetnih spletnih straneh.
V Ljubljani, dne____________________
Podpis: _______________________________
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 TEAM PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Work group and work team .......................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Work group................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.2 Work team ................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Team with the highest potential................................................................................. 4
1.2 Performance and high – performance team ................................................................ 5
1.2.1 Performance .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.2 The evolution............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.3 High-performance team............................................................................................. 6
2 ANTECEDENTS OF THE TEAM PERFORMANCE......................................................... 8
2.1 Thompson’s model ......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Hackman’s model........................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Yeatts and Hyten’s model ............................................................................................ 10
2.4 Katzenbach and Smith’s model................................................................................... 10
2.5 Lencioni’s model........................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Summary of models...................................................................................................... 12
3 TEAM DESIGN ................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Task analysis ................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 People............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.1 Matching members to the task ................................................................................ 14
3.2.2 Teamwork knowledge and experience .................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Personality............................................................................................................... 15
3.2.4 Size .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.5 Diversity .................................................................................................................. 17
4 TEAM PROCESSES ............................................................................................................ 18
4.1 Goal setting ................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Agreeing on common approach................................................................................... 19
4.3 Setting Norms ............................................................................................................... 20
5 INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES ...................................................................................... 21
5.1 Trust............................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Conflict .......................................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Commitment ................................................................................................................. 23
5.4 Accountability ............................................................................................................... 24
i
5.5 Orientation to results ................................................................................................... 24
6 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF A TEAM .................................................................. 25
6.1 Reward system.............................................................................................................. 25
6.2 Education system.......................................................................................................... 26
6.3 Information system ...................................................................................................... 26
6.4 Expert coaching ............................................................................................................ 27
6.5 Corporate culture ......................................................................................................... 27
7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 28
8. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 30
8.1. Team description ......................................................................................................... 30
8.2 Chronological development of the team..................................................................... 30
8.2.1 Getting started ......................................................................................................... 31
8.2.2 Pointless meetings ................................................................................................... 32
8.2.3 Making a first decision after a month and a half..................................................... 33
8.2.4 Getting down to work.............................................................................................. 33
8.2.5 New norms .............................................................................................................. 35
8.2.6 First breakthrough ................................................................................................... 35
8.2.7 Everything went back to “normal”.......................................................................... 36
8.2.8 Project is done ......................................................................................................... 36
9 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 37
9.1 Primary research question and first subsidiary question......................................... 37
9.1.1 Influencing commitment ......................................................................................... 37
9.1.2 Unclear and inappropriate goals.............................................................................. 38
9.1.3 Norms not respected................................................................................................ 39
9.1.4 Procrastinating with decision .................................................................................. 40
9.1.5 Unproductive meetings ........................................................................................... 41
9.1.6 Bad performance management (confrontation of issues)........................................ 42
9.1.7 Spending time on creating excuses ......................................................................... 43
9.1.8 Peer evaluation ........................................................................................................ 43
9.2 Secondary subsidiary question findings..................................................................... 44
9.3 Premise and autonomy- related challenges................................................................ 46
9.3.1 Can a self-directed team have too much authority? ................................................ 47
9.4 Limitations of the study ............................................................................................... 50
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 51
POVZETEK V SLOVENSKEM JEZIKU .............................................................................. 52
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 57
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PERFORMANCE CURVE - THE EVOLUTION FROM A GROUP TO THE HIGH-PERFORMING TEAM 6
FIGURE 2: INTEGRATED MODEL OF TEAMWORK BY THOMPSON .............................................................. 8
FIGURE 3: TEAM BASICS BY HACKMAN .................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 4: FACTORS AFFECTING WORK TEAM PERFORMANCE ............................................................... 10
FIGURE 5: TEAM BASICS ........................................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 6: FIVE BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A HIGH-PERFORMING TEAM ............................................ 11
FIGURE 7: TEAM DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 8: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUP SIZE AND PRODUCTIVITY ........................................... 17
FIGURE 9: RESULTS OF TAKING A SLOW OR A FAST START WITH VERY DIVERSE TEAMS ...................... 18
FIGURE 10: SETTING DIRECTION ABOUT MEANS VERSUS ENDS ............................................................. 19
FIGURE 11: O’GRADY MODEL ............................................................................................................... 45
FIGURE 12: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SETTING BOUNDARIES AND CONTROLLING ................................... 48
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: WHY SELF- DIRECTED WORK TEAMS ARE BETTER THAN TRADITIONAL TEAMS ....................... 4
TABLE 2: ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE TEAM PERFORMANCE.......................................................... 9
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF MODELS ....................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 4: THE FUNCTION AND BENEFITS OF GOOD DIRECTION .............................................................. 18
TABLE 5: DISCOVERED CHALLENGES CATEGORIZED INTO STEPS ACCORDING TO O’GRADY MODEL.... 44
TABLE 6: RISKS AND GAINS OF HAVING OR NOT HAVING A CONTROL OVER THE TEAM ......................... 49
iv
INTRODUCTION
A few years ago, organizations were encouraged to use group work and team work as much as
possible regardless of whether an individual work could have been more efficient. Then it was
discovered that in some situations better results will be accomplished by the individual over
the team. In appropriate situations, where team work is the best answer, we can have a group
of people with minimal interactions and bounding or we can have a team. We can also have a
high- performance team.
A high performance team is a team which is far more efficient and productive than any other
type of team. This team is self managed, and there is no official leader. It has established
norms, goals and everyone is in agreement of the mission statement. It also has some very
outstanding characteristics such as: trust between team members, team members solve
conflicts as they occur, they share commitment, and each member is accountable for results.
Because of the above characteristics, the high-performance team delivers outstanding results.
There are many models which offer insight into factors that influence team performance.
Basically, they emphasize the importance of the team composition: matching task to the right
people, and having a team that has the optimal level of diversity and size. Furthermore, they
talk about the importance of the processes in the team such as setting appropriate goals, norms
and agreeing on a common approach. Another important aspect is interpersonal relations
introduced by Patric Lencioni, which compose of trust, conflict, commitment, accountability
and attention to results. This list also needs to be supported by encouraging an organizational
environment. Organizations need to offer an efficient reward system, education, information
systems, expert coaching and a supportive organizational culture.
Increasing competition in the business world demands cooperation in an organization. While
studying at Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, I came across interesting information
related to high-performance teams. An ordinary team can be led through certain steps, which,
in 80% of cases, result in a team becoming a high-performance team. It is a model designed
by Professor Shawna O’Grady after studying teams for 13 years. She was willing to share her
knowledge with me in an interview.
Designing high-performance teams in organizations requires drastic changes. Those teams are
self-managed and organizations gradually become more successful to adapting to changes in
their environment. Empowerment is becoming a key strategic component which can help
organizations to quickly adapt to changes and turn all environmental threats to opportunities.
It is vital that employees forget about the “control orientation” and switch into the “learner
role” (Hirschhorn & Addison-Wesley, 1991, pp. 3).
In my research, which was conducted through three months of observation of a team, as well
as peer evaluation and secondary research, I have gathered that every team faces problems in
a process of becoming a high-performance team. My research question was to identify
1
common challenges that teams face, even when their composition is flawless and they have a
supportive organizational environment. My intention was to offer an insight into how those
challenges can be managed or even prevented. My goal was to offer a useful insight into how
the team can be managed that it reaches a high-performing state. By using and respecting the
given guidelines for becoming a high- performance team we can reduce the number of teams
that fail dramatically.
I also wanted to show further research possibilities with my premise that teams who are not
familiar with the team structure, a structure which offers a lot of autonomy, will face some
autonomy-related challenges. When teams are used to working in a very controlled
environment, they usually follow orders from their management. In a more empowered
structure, teams are controlled less and less. This has many advantages, such as more
flexibility and greater work satisfaction, but it can also have many negative consequences if
the team is overwhelmed by the feeling of freedom. In my research I tried to identify
autonomy-related challenges of the team. I also tried to suggest solutions which find a balance
between an optimal level of autonomy and control.
1 TEAM PERFORMANCE
1.1 Work group and work team
1.1.1 Work group
According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993, pp. 91) a work group is: “a group where [there] is
no significant incremental performance need or opportunity that would require it to become a
team. The members interact primarily to share information, bet practices, or perspectives and
to make decisions to help each individual perform within his or her area of responsibility.
Beyond that, there is no realistic or desirous ”small group” common purpose, incremental
performance goals, or joint work products that call for either a team approach or mutual
accountability”
Thompson’s (2007, pp. 5) definition of a work group is quite similar: a working group
consists of people who learn from one another and share an idea but are not interdependent.
Group members usually share information and insights, make decisions, and might also help
other members to do their jobs better.
The main difference between a work group and the real team is that in a work group, group
members focus more on individual goals and individual accountability. Therefore, members
of the group are not working toward the same goal (Thompson, 2007, pp. 5).
1.1.2 Work team
A work team is an interdependent set of individuals who share common responsibility for
their outcomes which affect the organization (Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990, pp.
2
120). Interdependency happens when members cannot achieve their goals single-handedly,
but must rely on each other in order to being able to achieve the shared objectives
(Thompson, 2007, pp. 4). Typical work team is formed from a small number of people with
complementary skills sets. Complementary skill set is only one source of interdependency;
furthermore members are also interdependent with respect to information, and resources
(Thompson, 2007, pp. 4).
Besides interdependency, another important characteristic is commitment. Members are
committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and have a common approach. They
also hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 45).
Teams usually have these following defining characteristics:
• They exist to achieve a shared goal (Alderfer & Smith, 1982, pp.38;
Thompson, 2007, pp. 5; Katzenbach & Smith, 1999, pp. 45).
• Team members are interdependent (Alderfer & Smith, 1982, pp. 38;
Thompson, 2007, pp. 5).
• Teams are bounded and stable over time (Alderfer & Smith, 1982, pp. 38;
Hackman, 2002, pp. 41).
• Team members have the authority to manage their own work and internal
processes (Alderfer & Smith, 1982, pp.38; Hackman, 2002, pp. 41).
• Teams operate in a social context – organization (Alderfer & Smith 1982,
pp. 38).
• Team task (Hackman, 2002, pp. 41).
Thompson (2007, pp. 9-13) defines four types of the teams: manager-led teams, selfmanaging teams, self-directing teams and self-governing teams. As mentioned above, one of
the key characteristics of the team is autonomy to manage internal process inside of the team
(Alderfer & Smith, 1982, pp. 38; Hackman, 2002, pp. 41). Some team structures allow more
and some allow less autonomy.
Manager-led teams are the most traditional form of the teams. Leader is responsible for
setting the roles, goals, methods and the way that team will function. Team itself is only
responsible for the execution of the given task. Control over team members is very high
(Thompson, 2007, pp. 9).
Self-managing team or self- regulating team is a team where a manager determines the goal
of the team, and the team has the power to manage methods to get to the goal (Thompson,
2007, pp. 9). In this team, the structure usually focuses productivity and quality improvement.
Furthermore, employee job satisfaction is higher, contribution is better, there is less
absenteeism and turnover (Yeatts, Cread, Ray, DeWitt, & Queen, 2004, pp. 216; Spreitzer,
Cohen, & Ledford, 1999, pp. 535).
A self-regulating team is also defined as a democratic form of work structure. Members get
the responsibility and control of their jobs and the conditions surrounding them (Grayson,
3
1992, pp. 22).
Self-directing or self-designing teams determine their own objectives and the methods by
which they will achieve them. They have the most potential for innovation. This type of
structure also enhances the goal commitment and motivation, and provides the opportunity for
learning and change (Thompson, 2007, pp. 11).
Self–governing teams are usually responsible for executing the task, managing their own
performance process, designing the group, and designing the whole organizational context
(Thompson, 2007, pp. 12).
1.1.3 Team with the highest potential
There are several types of teams and not all of them reach the same performance level. Well
designed and led self-managed and self-designed teams can outperform any other team
structure (Hackman, 2002, pp. 34).
Self-managed and self–directed work groups enable the improvement of the work life quality
and organizational effectiveness. The structure of self-directing teams is able to respond
quickly to the needs of the organization and workers. One of the biggest advantages is how
decisions are pushed down to the lower levels where information is actually available and
employees can react quickly (Grayson, 1992, pp. 22).
Table 1: Why self- directed work teams are better than traditional teams
Traditional work teams
Take directions
Seek individual rewards
Focus on blame
Compete
Stop at present goals
Demand more resources
React to emergencies
Spend money to improve quality
Self-directed teams
Take initiative
Focus on team contributions
Concentrate on solutions
Co-operate
Continually improve and innovate
Work with what they have
Take steps to prevent emergencies
Save money by improving quality
Source: Elmuti. D., Self-managed work teams approach: creative management tool or a fad?, 1997, pp. 235.
When employees have more autonomy, they feel more involved and commitment starts to
emerge (MacKenzie, 1979, pp.49). Some researchers see commitment as a fuel of high–
performing teams.
4
1.2 Performance and high – performance team
1.2.1 Performance
According to Thompson (2007, pp. 38) a performance criteria for a team consists from
productivity, cohesion, learning and integration. His view of performance is very similar to
Hackman’s opinion. Hackman (1989, pp. 6) believes that effectiveness can be explained by
the three dimensional model.
1. First dimension is how the team’s output meets set standards of quality, quantity, and
timelines of the people who receive the product of service. Thompson (2007, pp. 39)
explicitly emphasizes that efficiency is the part of productivity and it needs to be taken
into consideration at this point.
2. Second dimension is how working together makes the team even more cohesive also
in the future. With different words; when Thompson (2007, pp. 40) talked to a
manager in Societe Generale Bank, he said: “I ask myself whether I want to work with
these people again. If the answer is yes, then the team was successful. If the answer is
no, the team was not successful.”
3. Third Hackman’s dimension (1989, pp. 7) is a degree to which team helps individual
member to grow personally. Thompson (2007, pp. 41) uses the term learning. He
claims that every individual needs the opportunity to grow and to reach a selffulfillment. That is why successful teams need to be provided with challenges and
opportunities.
4. The fourth dimension suggested only by Thompson (2007, pp. 41) is integration. How
well the team fits into the company’s structure, how the team is integrated with other
teams in the organization, and is the team’s goals consistent with the larger
organizational goal.
An opposing opinion is that defining the performance might be impossible. In many cases,
there are no reliably objective measures of the team performance. If they are, they may have
not been comparable across teams and across organizations (Cohen, 1994, pp. 9).
1.2.2 The evolution
How does a work group evolve into a high- performing team? “The team performance curve”
shows how well groups and teams perform (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 85). On the curve
we see five different stages of group and team work:
• Working group: no interdependency and common goal
• Pseudo-team: group where could be a need for the team performance, but the group
5
has is not trying to work interdependently; it has no common purpose or performance
goals. They sometimes might even call themselves a team, but they are the weakest
formation and their sum of whole is less than potential of the individual parts.
• Potential team: a group with a significant potential for performance. But shared
purpose, goals and common work approach are not established.
• Real team
• High-performance team
Figure 1: Performance curve - The evolution from a group to the high-performing team
Source: Katzenbach and Smith, The wisdom of teams, 1993, pp. 93.
The figure above shows how many options for performance groups and teams have
(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 93). The biggest performance gain happens between a
potential team and a real team. The level of commitment that has to be made to move from a
real team to a high-performing team is shown by the dotted line.
In the next chapters, I am going to discuss all factors that influence the possibility of moving
up on the performance curve from the stage of a real team to the stage of the high-performing
team.
1.2.3 High-performance team
The high-performing team is the most evolved form of the team on the Katzenbach and
Smith’s performance curve. If we want to achieve this state, we need to know what sets a
high-performing team apart from the other forms of groups and teams.
Kur (1996, pp. 28) defines a high-performing team as follows: “A high performing team (or
organization) consistently satisfies the needs of customers, employees, investors and others in
6
its area of influence. As a result, these teams frequently outperform other teams that produce
similar products and services under similar conditions and constraints.”
An important component of a high-performing team is commitment. Katzenbach and Smith
(1993, pp. 65): “Behind a high-performance team lies a story of commitment. Like any real
team, a high-performance team must have a smaller number of people with the required skills,
purpose, goals, approach, and accountability […]. What sets apart high-performance teams,
however, is the degree of commitment; particularly how deeply committed the members are
one to another.” Because of the strong interpersonal commitment, commitment to the purpose
becomes even bigger, goals are more ambitious and approach is more powerful. Mutual
concern among members of the team enables growth and flexibility, and members also have
more fun than in regular teams (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 66).
Participative-management has emerged in last few decades and it talks about the importance
of employee participation in decision making process (Kim, 2002, pp. 237). Organizations
have to trust their employees and let them make important decisions. This will results in better
effectiveness of the organization (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 8).
One of the causes of commitment to the goals is also autonomy over decision making and
creating meaningful tasks. Members coordinate easier and participate more if they are
attracted to the task itself (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987, pp. 757).
The next important characteristic of a high-performance team is shared leadership. Some
authors believe how a leader can be any person inside the team who can provide the right
environment for the team performance. Hackman (2002, pp. 33) suggests that the leader
should not be a single person at one time. Instead, the leadership role must shift, as there is no
room for official authority. Leadership is provided by any member who can ensure the right
conditions for the team performance.
Other authors support the idea of having a rotating leadership role on a timely basis. The
leadership role should rotate among all team members. All team members must obtain a
leadership role even if they are reluctant. If they do not, these weaker members will be left
behind and stronger members will grow even stronger. The role of a leader has to be changed
every specific period of time (Harrington-Mackin, 1996, pp. 39).
I, however, disagree with the idea of having rotating leadership roles on a timely basis. The
purpose of a self-directing team is to assign tasks to members according to their strengths. By
forcing someone to take a role where he or she is weak, we influence the entire team’s wellbeing and performance. It is also impossible to predict the circumstances and shared
leadership on a timely basis, and so does not provide the model for matching strengths of the
individuals to the task according to the circumstances. We also lose a lot of flexibility and
learning opportunities.
7
2 ANTECEDENTS OF THE TEAM PERFORMANCE
There are a number of models describing factors which influence team performance. In this
chapter they are introduced and briefly described according to their authors.
2.1 Thompson’s model
Thompson believes that team performance is influenced by the team context and essential
conditions.
Figure 2: Integrated model of teamwork by Thompson
Team context
Organizational
context
Essential Conditions
Team performance
Ability:
•
•
•
•
Knowledge
Skills
Education
Information
Team Design
Motivation:
•
•
Productivity
Cohesion
Learning
Integration
Internistic
Externistic
Team Culture
Strategy:
•
•
Communication
Coordination
Source: L. L. Thompson, Making the team: A guide for managers, 2007, pp. 23.
Team context consist form (Thomson, 2007, pp. 23-25):
• Organizational context what is an organization with its reward system, informational
system, and educational system.
• Team design refers to the structure of the team (roles, communication patterns,
composition, and training).
• Team Culture consists from norms, roles, and patterns of behavior. As shown in the
chart, the team performance depends on the team formation and design, and on the
organization.
2.2 Hackman’s model
As shown on the figure, Hackman (2002, pp. 206) argues that essential conditions for high
performance are: real team, compelling direction (a goal), enabling structure (size and
diversity), supportive organizational context (informational system, reward system,
educational system) and expert coaching.
8
Figure 3: Team basics by Hackman
Supportive organizational context
Enabling
Structure
Team
effectivenes
Compeling
Direction
Real team
Expert coaching
Source: Wageman, Hackman and Lehman, Team diagnostic survey: Development of an Instrument, 2005, pp. 380 (author Hackman, 2002).
Hackman also gives some guidelines for setting the right goals, composing the right team and
having a supportive organizational environment (Hackman, 2002, pp. 207):
• Direction has to energize, orient attention, and engage people. Well designed tasks will
engage members and motivate them. Norms have to promote strategy planning for the
tasks that need to be performed.
• Well-composed team is small and diverse enough to have the best use of talent.
Organizational environment has to support the team with a reward system (rewards
that fosters team cooperation), information system (system that enables good
communication and ensures team to find the right means to the end goal regarding to
the environment and opportunities), and education system.
Table 2: Essential conditions for the team performance
Compelling
direction
Energizes
Orients attention
Engages talents
Enabling team
structure
+ Team task design
+ Norms
+ Team composition
Supportive
organizational context
+ Reward system
+ Informational system
+ Educational system
Team performance
process
Effort
Performance strategy
Knowledge and skill
Source: Hackman, Leading teams: Setting the stage for a great performances, 2002, pp. 206.
9
2.3 Yeatts and Hyten’s model
Yeatts and Hyten (1998, pp. 25- 46) provided a synthesis of the several theories and models.
They tested a combined model in practice and made their own theoretical model and found
two factors influencing teams: work related factors and team member characteristics. Work
related factors were already defined by Hackman (1988) and they have direct effect on team
performance; they include team effort, knowledge, skills and procedures for doing the work,
and also materials, space and equipment used. The second group of factors is the team’s
interpersonal process. These factors directly influence the performance through work factors.
Their model is very complex. Suggested factors are described in their figure.
Figure 4: Factors affecting work team performance
ENVIRONMENT
Within the organization organizational culture, clear engaging mission, reward, training, information and performance management system, Management roles and support, supplier, customer, union support, available, appropriate resources Outside the organization economy, technology, political system, legal, demography, education, social culture TEAM MEMBER CHARACTERISTICS existing talent (knowledge, skill, ability) personality; values, interests, needs, and prejudices DEMANDS OF TASKS INTERPERSONAL PROCESS within the team & between the team & others(communication, coordination, cooperation, conflict, cohesion, trust) TEAM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
goal clarity, challenge & priorities, job design, team size & composition, decision‐making methods & process for identifying procedures, work norms, roles of team & team leader WORK PROCESS
effort applied to tasks, talent applied, resources applied, work procedures TEAM PERFORMANCE
customer satisfaction with productivity, quality, timeliness, costs economic viability FEEDBACK TO PROCESS & INPUTS Source: Yeatts and Hyten, High- performing self-managed work teams: A comparison of theory to practice 1998, pp. 53.
2.4 Katzenbach and Smith’s model
According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993, pp. 9) all team basics are in their chart. Sides are
10
what the team can deliver, and the center can make that happen. Team members need to have
certain skills, be accountable and committed in order to get performance goals, which are
personal growth and collective work products.
Figure 5: Team basics
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
SKILS
ACCOUNTABILITY
Problem
solving
Tehnical
Interpersonal
Mutual
Individual
Small number
of people
Specific goals
Common approach
Meabibgful purpose
COLLECTIVE
WORK
PRODUCTS
COMMITMENT
PERSONAL
GROWTH
Source: Katzenbach and Smith, The wisdom of teams, 1993, pp. 8.
2.5 Lencioni’s model
Lencioni (2003, pp. 35 – 40) focuses on interpersonal relationships inside the team. He
believes the five conditions to success are trust, being able to have a constructive conflict,
commitment to the common goal, accountability and focusing on common results. The team
cannot move up the pyramid if bottom characteristic is not achieved.
Figure 6: Five basic characteristics of a high-performing team
Source: Lencioni, The trouble with teamwork, 2003, pp. 40.
11
2.6 Summary of models
Above I discussed several authors who provided different explanations and different models.
Some similarities and also differences can be found among them as shown in the table below.
Table 3: Comparison of models
Author
Thompson
Hackman
Yeatts and
Hyten
Katzenbach
and Smith
Lencioni
Designing the team
Processes in the team
Performance measures
Team context, and team
design, organizational
context
Organization (reward,
education, information,
training)
Task matched with
skills of the members,
team design (size,
diversity, interpersonal
skills)
Team members
characteristics, team
design and
environmental design
Ability, Motivation,
Strategy
Productivity,
Integration, learning,
cohesion
Output meets the
standard, good work
relations an growth of
the individual members
Team design, team
members
characteristics, task
design, environment
Not applicable.
Knowledge, skill and
effort by the team,
appropriate strategy
(norms, goals)
Work related factors:
include team effort,
knowledge, skills and
procedures of doing the
work by Hackman
(1988)
Interpersonal process;
directly influence the
performance
through
the work factors.
Interpersonal process,
work process, feedback
Trust, commitment,
conflict, accountability,
results
12
Personal growth,
collective work
products
Output meets the
standard, good work
relations an growth of
the individual members
Tangible collective
outcomes.
3 TEAM DESIGN
”Management is needed to define tasks that need to be done, to form teams of members with
complementary skills and personalities and then to empower the team to do its job.”
Eggensperger (2004, pp. 59).
Below is Thompson’s model (2007, pp. 80) showing a process of the team design. In this
chapter I am going to focus on the team design, later on in next chapters I will cover
processes inside the team and interpersonal processes, and at the end I will explain the
organizational context.
Figure 7: Team design
Source: Thompson, Making the team: A guide for managers, 2007, pp. 80.
3.1 Task analysis
People and the structure of the team are selected according to the task. That is why task
analysis should be the first step when we need to design a team.
When we evaluate the task we need to address some specific questions (Thompson, 2007, pp.
80):
• What work needs to be performed? How much authority does the group have to
manage their work?
• What is the focus of work the group will do? What is the degree of
interdependence among team members?
• Is there only one correct solution? Are team members interests aligned or
competitive?
After these questions are answered, we can move on to in the process of the team design,
where we focus on selection of the right people for the existing task.
13
3.2 People
3.2.1 Matching members to the task
Yeatts and Hyten (1998, pp. 66) suggest using the following steps for matching the task to the
members of the team:
1. Identify tasks
2. Identify characteristics and requirements of the task
3. Assess team member’s talents, values, interests, needs and prejudices
4. Match team members to task components
Members are matched to the task according to their talent, knowledge, skills, and ability.
Skills, knowledge and abilities are needed for the team’s success. Team members should have
the right skill set for the task to be able to accomplish it (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 68).
Firstly, skills can be put into three categories (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 47):
• Technical and functional expertise: there is no use of having several experts with the
same background in the same team
• Problem solving and decision-making skills: team needs people with those skills to
function well
• Interpersonal skills: constructive conflict and effective communication depend on
interpersonal skills; this also includes helpful criticism, risk taking, listening, support,
and recognition.
Many researchers emphasize how important is to have different skill sets in the team.
However, there is one controversial finding by Yeatts and Hyten (1998, pp. 68). If only one
member has the certain skill to accomplish the task, the team will be less successful than
when more members have the same skill. This is because the task cannot be done when the
certain person is no present. In their research were the highest performing teams the ones
where all team members had all skills necessary for accomplishing the task.
Secondly, team member’s abilities have to be matched with the task which needs to be
performed. In other words, team members have to have skills and abilities applicable to the
task in order to make them feel how they are able to make an important contribution. If we do
not establish that, the team can suffer from social loafing. Social loafing occurs when team
members fail to put forth their best effort, because they believe their level of effort will not be
comparable to others (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979, pp. 823-832). People’s strengths
are usually also their area of interest, which has a positive effect on the work process and
performance (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 272).
On the contrary, Robbins (1995, pp. 341) believes that social loafing can occur even when the
task is provoking, involving, and a person has the authority to make a unique contribution.
14
Best suggested solution for preventing the social loafing are team norms. Social loafing
occurs very rarely when members believe that other members will not loaf.
Skills, knowledge and abilities are closely linked to the organizational environment; providing
training, feedback and having efficient reward system. They are also influenced by the team
norms. Some norms enable learning environment, other do not. If we assess the team’s high
performance also based on member’s growth (Hackman, 2002, pp. 41), the learning
environment has to be provided. Coaching, feedback and performance management are
discussed in the Organizational context chapter.
3.2.2 Teamwork knowledge and experience
Teamwork knowledge is an understanding of team processes; this understanding is different
from individual to individual (Rentsch, Heffner & Duffy, 1994, pp. 451). Part of the team
knowledge is based on past team experience.
Teamwork knowledge can also be referred as a teamwork schema. A schema is knowledge
structure combined from past experiences combined with a new information which facilitates
the understanding (Poole, Gray, & Gioia, 1990, pp. 212).
Rentsch, Heffner and Duffy (1994, pp. 451) discovered that more experiences mean more
knowledge, and more experience individuals have better understanding of the team work than
less experienced individuals.
Some researchers do show how learning by doing benefits organization. Individual and team
experience can speed up the process of task completion. Working with the same members will
lead to more trusting environment and allocation of the tasks according to member’s strengths
will be done sooner (Reagans, Argote, & Brooks, 2005, pp. 880).
3.2.3 Personality
Researchers vary a lot in their evaluation of how much personality really affects the team's
success. Some say personal traits are not important, others claim certain personality trait does
influence team effectiveness. Researchers also have different opinions on which personality
traits actually affect the performance of the team.
Rentsch, Heffner and Duffy (1994, pp. 451) suggest that teams with members who are unable
to evaluate socially appropriate responses; do not know how to react on people’s needs and
feelings, and have worse performance results. Personality traits cause difference in developing
interpersonal relationships. Traits that influence cohesion are agreeableness, extraversion, and
emotional stability.
Highly disagreeable members can cause low performance, low cohesion, closed
communication and less learning. There are findings how this consequence can emerge when
15
only one member in the team is highly disagreeable (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount,
1998, pp. 377 - 391).
Costa and McCrae (1995, pp. 5-13) discovered five personality traits which make a person
better team member: conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience
and emotional stability. Those traits can be a sign for a person who is more likely to be
cooperative.
Based on those findings only a few people can be put into the teams and be successful. The
truth is that (Mohammed & Angell, 2008, pp. 651 - 677) that study revealed how the
personality-performance relationship was not consistent across different tasks. There is no
single optimal composition for teams. More than personal traits we have to look at the task
itself and the team context when we design a team or measure the results.
3.2.4 Size
Team size of six to eight people appears to be the best size for high-level communication
(Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 85). There is more likely that team will become cohesive if
smaller numbers of people are involved, because they will have an opportunity to get to know
each other through communication (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 101).
But Yeatts and Hyten (1998, pp. 94) do see some advantages in a large team. When a large
team has norms about cooperative conflicts, best solutions are chosen in very large teams. If
norms are not developed, team will face a competitive conflict which results in many negative
outcomes. The norms established are more important than the team size.
A team which is too large can start to form sub teams and usually communication between
sub teams is not ongoing. Lack of communication and interpersonal interaction causes
interpersonal conflicts. That is why coordination in large teams can be challenging (Yeatts &
Hyten, 1998, pp. 260).
In very large teams diffusion of responsibility (Darley & Latane, 1968) may affect teams.
Diffusion of responsibility is a failure to act in situations where others are involved. Each
member may believe that others will take the needed action and he does not need to
participate. Two things can happen: social loafing or sucker aversion. Sucker aversion
happens when group members believe that others will not put their entire effort to enhance the
group performance. That is why they also hold themselves back to avoid being the “sucker”
who does all the work (Schnake, 1991, pp. 51).
Psychologist Steiner (1972, pp. 96) researched the group size and productivity. Groups never
perform at the level of their potential productivity. We have to look at the actual productivity.
Every new person adds something, but less than a previous person in the team. This can be
explained with an effect of social loafing— the larger the team gets, the less effort members
will put into work (Thompson, 2007, pp. 31).
16
Figure 8: The relationship between group size and productivity
Potential productivity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of members
Process losses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of members
Actual productivity
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of members
Source: Steiner, Group processes and productivity, 1972, pp. 96.
3.2.5 Diversity
When team members are diverse, the potential to come up with new ideas will be greater,
there will be more opportunities to learn, and more chances that some new knowledge will be
formed (Molleman & Timmerman, 2003, pp. 109).
Diversity is linked to cohesion. People who are similar are going to socialize more and reach
cohesion faster. Also people who are similar to one another in their beliefs, values and
attitudes will trust each other faster (Thompson, 2007, pp. 119). The challenge is because
similarity enhances mutual liking and trust. This leads to the more open exchange of
knowledge and expertise (Glaman, Jones, & Rozelle, 1996, pp. 211). We need to find a mix
between members who are enough similar and enough different (Hackman, 2002, pp. 123).
Only that way we will have both; different expertise and knowledge transfer.
According to Scott-Ladd and Chan (2008, pp. 245) females are more likely to work
collectively, with more emphasis on feelings or intuition and integrating learning. Males like
the role of leader and they are better at solving problems. Mixed-gender teams might provide
a better balance and more positive team experiences.
According to Davison (1994, pp. 85): “The team basics of clarifying and agreeing a working
method and performance goals, surfacing assumptions and differences, actively listening and
participating are the same. In international teams, applying the basics before rushing to
complete the task is all the more important. The differences in expectations and approach are
likely to be far higher.” Watson, Kumar and Michaelsen (1993, pp. 599) support this theory;
highly diverse teams will have slow start, but after a while they will be as efficient as
homogeneous teams in their task performance. Diverse teams will experience more conflict. If
very diverse groups are not properly managed, they will not reach their potential, but if
diverse groups are managed properly, they can be better at generating ideas.
17
Figure 9: Results of taking a slow or a fast start with very diverse teams
Performance
level on the
task
The team takes the
time to implement
the “team basics”
The “expert”
rushes the team
into the task
Time
Source: Davison, Creating a High Performance International Team, 1994, pp. 86.
4 TEAM PROCESSES
4.1 Goal setting
Short term goals have to be consistent with long term purpose otherwise teams lose track,
team members become confused and they pull apart (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 49).
Team has to know what performance criteria they need to meet and criteria needs to be tightly
linked with their goals (Hirschhorn, 1991, pp. 18). Broad directives have to be transformed
into measurable and smaller goals. Specific performance goals help them to be on track and
check the accountability; when performing commitment will raise and performance will raise
back. Celebration of those results in important to build commitment (Katzenbach & Smith,
1993, pp. 49-56).
Hackman (2002, pp. 61 - 72): self-directing teams cannot be successful if they do not have
clear direction. By having a good direction we can energize the team members (we get
commitment), we orient attention and action, and engage team member’s talents (engaging
direction helps to get all the talents from all team members). Good direction has to be
challenging, clear, and consequential. Goals need to be set high enough to challenge the team
because they will influence the motivation and effort allocation of the members (Yeatts &
Hyten, 1998, pp. 245).
Table 4: The function and benefits of good direction
Attributes of good direction
Challenging
Clear
Consequential
Functions
Energizes
Orients
Engages
Benefits
Enhances motivation
Aligns performance strategy with purposes
Fosters full utilization of knowledge and skill
Source: Hackman , Leading teams: Setting the stage for a great performance, pp. 72.
18
Having empowered employees who have autonomy of making decisions will result in
committed workforce and good performance results (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987, pp. 757). This is
the basic advantage of the self-directing team structure. But according to Katzenbach and
Smith (1993, pp. 49-56) it is wrong to assume that a team will be more committed if it sets its
own goals. This can cause more confusion and it is time consuming; because goals have to be
collective and individual. Groups that fail almost never agree on that common purpose; that is
why members can not set themselves specific and accountable goals. Performance can be
equally high or even higher even when goals are set by the supervising manager. Because they
can be more clear and commitment can be bigger when a person with authority assigns goals.
Those goals can be also seen as a challenge from management (Locke & Latham, pp. 241).
After all, most research still shows that commitment really is higher when teams are allowed
to set their own goals because alignment with personal values and interests is greater when
people can set their own goals (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 246).
4.2 Agreeing on common approach
Teams have to agree on how they will work together to accomplish the common purpose. It is
important that every team member put in the same amount of effort. Team members have to
agree on all administrative part of the work: give tasks, agree on schedule, how the group is
going to make decisions, and approach to getting the job done (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993,
pp. 65-60).
Right use of procedures will make team more efficient: they will use less time, resources,
people and help to save costs. High-performing teams usually seek for new ways to solve
problems more efficiently and do not stick to the usual procedures. Effective team norms have
to include repeated evaluation of procedure (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 71).
The following matrix shows the best use of human resources according to specifying means
versus ends.
Figure 10: Setting direction about means versus ends
Specify ends?
No
Yes
No
Specify means?
Yes
Source: Hackman, Leading teams: Setting the stage for a great performance, 2002, pp. 73.
19
Isaken and Lauer (2002, pp. 78) believe that teams get to much guidance on how (means) and
not enough on what (ends) and why. Unclear unspecified end can be the biggest underutilization cause. They are not saying that teams have to get goals from the top, but
organization should provide broad, clear and understandable direction.
Agreeing on common approach can help improve coordination and reduce effort. Highly
coordinated teams spent little time on delegating tasks and setting timelines, which leaves
more time for team members to actually work (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 61). High trust and
open communication can enable members to get the information quickly and to react quickly.
4.3 Setting Norms
Core norms are necessary to regulate the behavior— they have to be clear and strong. Team
that has clear norms spends less time arguing and puts more time and energy into completing
tasks. Norms can have positive and negative impact on performance (Hackman, 1989, pp. 10).
Norms have to be set carefully because they help to form a culture which is hard to change. If
one time norm was to finish the task quickly and the other day to finish the task with great
consideration of the quality, it is hard to change people’s behavior once norms are established
(Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 60). Norms define which behaviors are accepted in the team and
which are not. Appropriate behaviors are encouraged and inappropriate behaviors are
sanctioned (Hackman, 2002, pp. 105).
Norm design is entirely up to team members, but they usually entail what team members
perceive as extremely important. Team norms that address interpersonal relationships and tie
that to performance have the biggest impact on the team performance. They usually address
punctuality, communication, participation, and conflict management (Hackman, 2002, pp.
105).
Hackman (2002, pp. 106) believes there are two basic norms that need to be addressed in the
team and other norms can be set on top of them:
1. “Members should take an active, rather than a reactive, stance toward the
environment in which the team operates, continuously scanning the
environment and inverting or adjusting their performance strategies
accordingly.
2. The behavioral boundaries within which the team operates should be
demarcated, identifying the small handful of things that members must always
do and those they must never do.”
Norms can be formed in various ways. They can be suggested by all individual members, they
can be spontaneously evolved after time when team discovers what works the best (Hackman,
2002, pp. 105). Hackman also warns us how some counter-productive norms are formed
during that time, because it is very hard to change norms once they are established.
20
Sometimes teams can find it useful to add norms with time. Secondary norms are used to help
regulating their interactions with each other. Those norms can be a respond on the existing
problem with a certain team member and other members want to make sure they will not have
to deal with it constantly (Hackman, 2002, pp. 105).
5 INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES
Lencioni (2003, pp. 35-40) in his pyramid model defines five characteristics of a successful
team: Trust, Conflict, Commitment, Accountability and Results. In the following section, I
discuss the importance of every one of them. They have to be built in this chronological order
in order to reach a high performing state.
5.1 Trust
Sometimes authors talk about cohesion and trust together (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 97).
Cohesion is a degree to which members of a team fell attracted to their team and compelled to
stay in it. Cohesiveness can be team-oriented (members express concerns for team members,
increases commitment) or task-oriented (members express concern for the task outcome)
(Carron & Brawley, 2000, pp. 90). In high performing teams they found both high
cohesiveness for task and high for team members.
If only team-oriented cohesion can reduce time allocated to the task because members spend
too much time on non-working related subjects. If cohesion is very low, members rarely ask
for help (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 97).
Team-oriented cohesion is influenced by the team size and task-oriented cohesion is affected
by the clarity of goals. Team-oriented cohesion increases open communication. The danger is
group think, when people agree rather than disagree with other members (Janis, 1983, pp. 8)
and this can lead to polarization of decisions and decisions can become extreme (Yeatts &
Hyten, 1998, pp. 99).
Some studies suggest that cohesion helps to minimize interpersonal conflict and increases task
related conflict, and teams get more innovative (Ensley, Pearson, & Amason, 2002, pp. 380).
Others believe that cohesion means expressing more opinions, which is why it also means
more conflict (Tekleab, Quigley & Tesluk, 2009, pp. 23). In any case, a team has to know
how to manage conflicts. Open discussion and finding the consensus are the best way and
they help to build trust and strong interpersonal relationships. A team has to know how to deal
with task conflicts, since there is a danger if the task conflict is not resolved properly it can
blend to the relationship conflict and minimizes the cohesion. Team cohesion also influences
the perceived team performance.
21
When individual members have a chance to express their own perspectives and in that way
also affect a group decision, members will more openly accept the decision results (McFarlin
& Sweeney, 1992, pp. 436). Accepted decision results will lead to even stronger cohesion.
Trust is a team member’s readiness to rely on other members without controlling them
(Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007, pp. 346-347). When team members trust each other
several things happen (Yeatts & Hyten , 1998, pp. 103): they worry less about the members
and place more effort into work itself, members are more willing to ask for the assistance or
they allow person with more appropriate skills to do the task, that is how the optimal talent is
placed on the right task. Furthermore, when members trust each other, they accept different
viewpoints. They are not concerned that someone is suggesting a new idea for his personal
benefits.
Actions that increase trust (Harrington-Mackin, 1996, pp. 118): meaning what you say, being
involved, not arguing too much, acting consistently, sharing information willingly, showing a
willingness to be vulnerable, doing more that is required, believing that another person has
your best interest in mind, being able to ask for help, maintain the level of honesty, exposing
something personal about yourself, acknowledging someone else’s skill, taking risk first,
reaching out to somebody who is distant and different.
Willingness to be vulnerable is described by Lencioni (2003, pp. 36-38). He introduced a new
term “vulnerability-based trust.” It means that members of a functional team have to know
how to admit mistakes and weaknesses. They must be prepared to recognize when some
members have strengths which exceed their own, they have to control their egos, admit
weaknesses, speak openly when they disagree, confront behavioral problems directly, and put
the team’s success beyond their personal desires. Trust is a foundation for the team to engage
in the productive conflict.
Being able to ask for help has many advantages. Interdependency is valued among people
who trust each other, that is why nobody acts judgmental and nobody feels embarrassed when
asking for help (Jones & George, 1998, pp. 541). Klaver (2005, pp. 16- 20) people do not ask
for help if they fear rejection, loss of control and shame. With open communication we can
overcome that and make asking for help a part of work environment. When team members
ask for help there are several types of costs reduced: cost of fixing a problem instead of
solving the problem immediately, cost of wasting time and being less efficient, cost of
reduced productivity because strengths of members are not fully utilized, possibilities of
development for the team is limited if members do not get the opportunity to grow, less team
bonding, building expectation in the team that asking for help is not necessary, not asking for
help is like a secret, an issue not resolved and it causes bad communication and artificial
harmony.
5.2 Conflict
Some authors (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 89) talk about conflict together with cooperation
22
and collaboration. Cooperation and collaboration are very similar and they are defined as two
or more people working together towards a common objective (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp 89).
Conflict was first perceived as a disagreement which had negative consequences (lack of
trust, cooperation) later on some ideas of good conflicts have emerged. Beneficial conflict,
that is when two or more people have opposing ideas but they are open to understand each
other’s views. The negative conflict was determined as a competitive conflict, where people
fight to get the win over other ideas (Tjosvold, 1998, pp. 287). Competitive conflict is most
likely to occur when several members could not agree on their strengths and are unable to
decide who is going to perform the task (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 95).
Non-beneficial conflict can be prevented by having strong norms, or when the team goals are
very clear, so team member put their personal desires second and the team’s goals first
(Tjosvold, 1998, pp. 304). Norms also should encourage cooperative conflict— when team
members do not agree a variety of ideas are presented and that can lead to the best decision
made (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 93). Groupthink (Janis, 1983, pp.8) is when team members
are not open to offer alternative solutions. Teams cannot make the best decision in that kind of
situation.
Some teams avoid getting into the conflict, as task related conflicts then grow into
relationship conflicts (Tekleab, Quigley & Tesluk, 2009, pp. 22). When members avoid
addressing issues it is impossible to make a real commitment (Lencioni, 2003, pp. 38).
Conflict is a lot about communication. Self-directed teams which have good communication
in decision-making process and who gave the extra weight to the opinions of the biggest
experts of the problem are far more successful than self-directed teams who have dominant
members (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 69). When a team has an open, non-threatening
communication more alternatives are discussed when making decisions. More information
can assure that team will chose the best procedure (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 85).
Open, ongoing, honest and regular communication has a positive effect— providing new
information, reviewing past work and discussing the progress, not blaming anybody, and
quickly conveying the information among every member. Open communication is important
for learning from mistakes, for building trust and asking for help when it is needed (Yeatts &
Hyten, 1998, pp. 79).
5.3 Commitment
Commitment can be explained as an effort put into the task (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 59).
Effort is the amount of energy put into work, and it is tied to both commitment and
motivation. There are two types of commitment: affective commitment is when the employee
is emotionally attached to the company or the team, and continuance commitment is when the
employee perceives costs of leaving the company (it is a need to have a job). Emotional
commitment is the one which increases energy level put into the work and can provide better
23
results (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 65).
Most common causes of commitment (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987) are: autonomy over the
decision making, meaningful tasks, desired rewards, and appraisal system that recognizes the
individual’s contribution.
Lencioni (2003, pp. 38 - 39) believes that because a team rarely has enough information to
make smooth decisions and it is hard to reach consensus, commitment is hard to achieve.
Some members will disagree with the idea and rather than confronting the idea, they will
ignore it. Commitment has to be supported by trust (members have to be comfortable to speak
out). Members have to be able to disagree and have constructive conflict in order to be able to
commit.
5.4 Accountability
”Think, for example, about the subtle but critical difference between”the boss holds me
accountable” and “we hold ourselves accountable”. The first can lead to the second; but
without the second, there it can be no team,” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 60).
According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993, pp. 60) promises made have to be kept because
accountability goes in hand with trust. By keeping promises we can trust other team members.
They believe that accountability has nothing to do with shared purpose and common approach
and performance goals. Accountability arises when members invest time, energy and action
into achieving goals. Trust and commitment follow that. If goals are set clearly, people are
held accountable and this in turn increases productivity. Everyone knows what his or her job
is and what he or she should be doing. It is also easier to keep promises and satisfy the
expectations of other team members.
Some teams are unable to address the problems and usually start to gossip and build bad
morale. Accountability has to be supported by clear goals and roles (Lencioni, 2003, pp. 39).
5.5 Orientation to results
On this stage, the team has to do two things in order to be successful.
Firstly, they need to pay attention to their performance. Katzenbach and Smith (1993, pp. 61):
“Teams do not spring up by magic. Nor does personal chemistry matter as much as most
people believe. […]. And focusing on performance- not chemistry or togetherness or good
communication or good feelings- shapes teams more than anything else.” The debriefing
process is very important, since it offers information about what the team is doing well and
where it needs to improve. Team members learn and grow, and necessary changes are made. If
the team does not pay attention to the results, they cannot reach a high-performance.
Secondly, the team needs to work towards the same goal. Success is when the team reaches its
24
goal by collaborative work. It is essential that members value the team’s goal over their
personal desires (Lencioni, 2003, pp. 40).
6 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF A TEAM
Integration in the company context is the last dimension which affects the team’s
performance. What can organization do to maximize the team performance?
The company should provide appropriate resources for work, such as materials and space
(Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 69). Teams should have the appropriate resources. Highperformance teams manage to use the right set of them, as they continuously evaluate the
resources to make sure they are using the right resources according to their limitations. It is
vital for the team to know which resources have to be applied to work in order to be
successful. Organizations need to provide training in order to make sure that every team
member has the knowledge to make the most efficient use of resources.
Presence or absence of listed features has a huge effect on teams and their performance
(Hackman, 1989, pp. 11):
• Reward system
• Education system
• Information system
• Expert coaching (Wageman, Hackman & Lehman, 2005, pp. 378)
6.1 Reward system
Organizations can influence the cooperation and conflict by having an effective reward
system (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 91). A reward system has to be placed in the way that it
rewards cooperation between team members (team based rewards) and individual
performance. Awarding only the individual work can cause avoidance of cooperation and
conflicts inside the team. Rewarding only teamwork causes that high-performers might
withdraw their effort because their individual achievements are not recognized enough, and
social loafing might occur (Heneman & Von Hippel, 1995, pp. 63). Reward allocation only on
a team basis may encourage social loafing (Shepperd, 1995, pp. 75).
Organization has to measure the performance in order to understand if team is providing
satisfying results or not; every organization has to develop efficient appraisal and assessment
systems, provide feedback and reward desired behaviors (Yeatts & Hyten,, 1998, pp. 123).
Molleman and Timmerman (2003, pp. 93-113) have designed a performance management
system based on performance indicators, innovation and the creation of knowledge. One of
the team’s criteria for success is also growth of the members in sense of gaining knowledge
from other members (Hackman, 2002, pp. 7). Creative work is more non-routine and a higher
level of interdependency among workers is needed in order to find new ways to resolve
25
problems. When learning and innovation are performance indicators, performance becomes
much more a team issue than individual issue. And that is why performance management
system has to be tightly connected to learning and innovation; being successful at non-routine
and very interdependent tasks.
Their model pays attention to processes, behaviors, attitudes and personal growth. It
understands the critical presence of regular and ongoing feedback. This is a cyclical system
that is composed of four stages: accountability, engagement, appraisal and reward. First goals
are set. Secondly, engagement is reached through satisfying work more often than monetary
rewards. Thirdly, feedback is provided in the appraisal stage. The final step is reward.
6.2 Education system
Because self-directed teams do not have a direct supervision and are managing themselves,
they have to examine data of their performance. Therefore a valid and comprehensive
performance measurement system has to be established in the organization, and the team
needs to have access to the data in order to understand their performance (Yeatts & Hyten,
1998, pp. 136).
Empowerment is a great advantage, but it can cause a lot of trouble when employees do not
receive a proper training. Training needs to be regular, continuous, new skills have to be
thought such as negotiating performance plans, decision making, conflict resolution,
leadership, budgeting, and a technical expertise in several jobs. Teams need to know how to
make decisions, how to solve conflicts and set team goals as well as how to self monitor and
take responsibility for leading themselves (Randolph, 1995, pp. 29).
Team members learn and grow also through feedback from their peers.
Yeatts and Hyten (1998, pp. 138 – 141) suggest some characteristics of good feedback:
• Feedback has to be relevant to the team tasks
• Feedback has to be easily understood
• Feedback has to be updated as frequently as possible
• Feedback has to be easily accessible by the team
• Feedback has to be designed to still support the empowerment (not control)
The team that reviews its performance weekly as a part of regular meetings is going to be
more successful. Members have to discuss the improvement and suggest new ideas, problemsolving activities has to take place before major damage is made. Again, in order to track the
progress, goals have to be really clear.
6.3 Information system
Communication inside the team, and between the team and company environment can also be
interrupted when company does not provide enough communication devices (telephones, etc).
26
Therefore company has to ensure the right information system to enable communication
inside and outside the team (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 83). Furthermore, if communication
system conveys distorted or inaccurate information, it can reduce the level of trust among
team members (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 104).
There are some differences noticed in the frequency of communication connected to expertise
and years of doing the specific task. People who have more knowledge are more likely to
communicate more and listen better, and people who have done the exact job for a few years
are likely not going to communicate a lot (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 86). Organizations can
provide communication training to help their employees actively listen and communicate
(Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 83).
6.4 Expert coaching
Thompson (2007, pp. 20) defined that expert learning is when we are making sure that
members do not make the same mistake again. Members should learn from their own
experience. This is why mistakes should be allowed to be made.
Coaching cannot correct badly chosen team design, but coaches can help teams to get the best
performance according to the circumstances (Hackman & Wageman, 2005, pp. 279). Coaches
can help in three different areas (Wageman, Hackman & Lehman, 2005, pp. 378):
• Effort – they help members to minimize coordination and motivation problems and to
build commitment to the group and its task.
• Performance strategy – they help members to avoid sticking to unsuccessful routines
that may be inappropriate for their task or situation, and to develop innovative work
procedures that fit well to task requirements.
• Knowledge and skill – they help members to avoid inappropriate assessing of
individual contributions and to share their strengths.
6.5 Corporate culture
Corporate culture is the personality of the company (Sherriton & Stern, 1997, pp. 23).
Sherriton and Stern (1997, pp. 27) believe that culture starts with the norms of the team and
builds up through management environment (procedures in place), management philosophy
and beliefs and values shared by all members of the organization.
Culture is hard to change and it must support the way things get done. Companies need to
provide environment which will support teams (Sherriton & Stern, 1997, pp. 35). The level of
the team's autonomy should be aligned with the organizational culture (Tata, 2000, pp. 192).
In other words, teams with high levels of autonomy are the most effective in companies with
flexibility-oriented culture and structure (Tata, 2000, pp. 187).
27
There are some things that can be changed in organizational culture in order to provide a good
environment for the self – delegating teams (Sherriton & Stern, 1997, pp. 56-58):
• Hierarchy needs to flatten, boundaries between management and workers need to be
reduced and status has to be a result of expertise on the certain problem and skills
across the boundaries. Decision-making has to be decentralized.
• Fragmentation such as departments, divisions have to collaborate and have willingness
to share information and resources.
• In the past independence and autonomy was encouraged. The real team work has to be
interdependent while striving to reach the goal. Companies need to know which tasks
can be efficiently done by individuals and which by the team work. Appropriate
reward system needs to support this strategy.
• Cooperation is sharing information, resources, and recognition for a well done job.
Organizations need to make sure that teams do not become solitary units fighting the
rest of the organization for resources. Team culture needs to support internal and
external cooperation.
• Organizations need to allow risk taking- they have to allow for learning new things,
making mistakes and learning from them. New, creative solutions have to be
encouraged.
7 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The intent of this chapter is to describe the purpose of the study, methodology, profile of the
participating team, and team dynamics during the research.
The purpose of the study was to explore the following research questions:
What challenges will a newly formed and inexperienced self-directed team face, when the
team composition is flawless (good size, diversity and skill sets) and the team has a
supportive environment (available expert coaching)?
Two subsidiary questions emerged from the primary research question:
1. How can those challenges be solved or prevented?
2. How can we manage an inexperienced self-directing team to get the team into the
high-performing state?
The primary research question was investigated through the observation and peer evaluation;
the first subsidiary question was addressed through secondary research, the second subsidiary
question was addressed with the interview and secondary research.
28
The main premise is:
Inexperienced self-directing work team will face autonomy related challenges at the early
beginning of familiarization with the new work structure, which will affect their performance.
There is no evidence of how a new team structure and a changed level of empowerment can
effect team performance and how experience influence the future performance of the team.
My assessment is that team members, who had previous experience of working in a selfdirecting structure and this level of empowerment, will face fewer challenges than teams
which have no experience. Therefore their overall performance will be better. Is it important
that team has relevant experience according to the exact structure within which we want them
to perform; because there might be some negative transfer of previous experiences in the
different structure. For example, the team who used to work in very manager-led structure
will feel overwhelmed by too much authority in the self-directing structure and will need
much more time to deal with challenges than an experienced team who had worked in the
same structure before.
In models of factors which influence the performance we cannot find that experience of
working in the same team structure affects the performance. But indirectly authors mention
expert coaching, learning, knowledge, feedback, education. All of these help team members to
familiarize with the new structure and develop practices that work better and better and
consequently improve their performance.
Methodology: Method used was an observation in setting. Observation lasted from the
moment when the team was designed, to the completion of the project, which lasted three
months. I participated in every team meeting and I had access to all meeting communication
of the team through electronic mail.
The criteria for assessing the data from observation was Lencioni's pyramid (2003, pp.40).
According to Lencioni (2003, pp. 40) there can be five dysfunctions of the team.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Absence of trust – Are team members honest and respectful?
Fear of conflict - Did team members deal with the conflict?
Lack of commitment - How committed were team members?
Avoidance of accountability - How many excuses were there?
Inattention to results - Did the team reach the desired goal?
Peer evaluation was also used to check the situation of observed characteristics and to address
two criteria of effectiveness (O’Grady, 2008): satisfaction with the outcome and satisfaction
with interpersonal relationships (O’Grady, 2008; Hackman, 2002, pp. 7). The third assessment
would be comparison of the team’s mark on a project to the average mark of the class as
comparison to the standards (Hackman, 1990, pp. 6; O’Grady, 2008). Unfortunately, the team
tailored the results of their report and presentation. Their performance was assessed only
29
according to the report and presentation, so the comparison would not give credible results.
8. RESULTS
8.1. Team description
The team had five members, three females and two males. All team members had the same
educational background of the commerce program. Their age ranged from 20 to 23. They
were from three different nationalities: two members were from North America and two from
Europe. Their areas of free time interests were much dispersed and did not overlap.
They received in class learning about team basics: trust, conflict, commitment, accountability
and focus on results. They also received short guidelines about how norms, goals and mission
should look like. When they were put together in a team, they did a fifteen minute “get to
know each other” exercise, which helped the team to get familiar with their team member’s
background.
They got accurate information and expectations from the professor. Their task was a real-life
project for the leadership class and they were graded as follows: the project was worth 35 %
of the final mark; 30% was based on the team assessment of presentation and final report, and
5 % was based on individual performance assessed by the peer evaluation.
The team was formed by the professor. The professor had an individual meeting with every
single member in order to get to know all individuals. They were matched without their
awareness based on gender, and nationalities to create a diverse team. They have never
worked together before. Furthermore, they did not even have any social contact before the
research. Teams did not have to deal with the team design, which was the most optimally
chosen by the professor.
The only directive provided by the professor was to make a positive change in the local
community and to present the project finished or not finished in the class at the end of the
semester, which was in three months. Team had all characteristics of a real self-directing
team. Members had autonomy to decide what project they are going to do, how they are going
to do it, and when. They had to set their own norms, goals and mission, and agreed on all
team and interpersonal processes. They had the power of selecting their own ends and means.
The team was inexperienced working in a self-directing structure. Individuals were used to
being delegated about what to do and sometimes even how to do it. There was no formal
leader.
8.2 Chronological development of the team
I have split the team dynamics into the eight most critical steps. Below, they are described in a
30
chronological order.
8.2.1 Getting started
The team set following norms, goals and mission by itself on their first meeting:
Written norms set by the team:
z All meetings start on time and occur on a regular basis.
z Meetings should be productive and be ~1.5h.
z Members come prepared for meetings.
z All members need to be present when important decisions are made.
z No face book or email during meetings.
z Meetings will follow an agenda.
z Everyone contributes.
z Members respect one another.
z Everyone listens to one another.
z Set goals and timelines. Set early deadlines in case there are unanticipated delays.
z Everyone is aware of deadlines and will keep them.
z Announce travel plans early.
z Responsibility and accountability for actions.
z End each meeting with an overview of everyone’s responsibilities and prepare an
agenda for the next meeting.
z Reply to emails within 24 h.
Written goals set by the team:
z To make all important decisions by consensus.
z Equally participate to planning and execution of the project.
z To insure all team members build personal relationship among each other during entire
project.
z To promote personal growth and development.
z To achieve a minimum mark of 100%.
z To raise a minimum of $1 500.
Written mission set by the team:
To learn and develop with the team while successfully strengthen the relationship between
university students and local community, and at the same time helping individuals to improve
the quality of their lives.
The problem was because norms, goals ant the mission statement were set at their first
meeting and they have never changed any of it. Even when they started a new project, their
goal was still to collect $1.500, what was the specific goal for their first project.
The team faced some difficulties with choosing the project. They selected one, but never
started to work on it. After the first week members were struggling to find a suitable project.
31
It seemed like too much authority was their biggest burden at the beginning, and decisionmaking process was really poorly handled.
They also had serious trouble with a meeting attendance. Members did not notify other
members in advance. The influence of two members who have been missing the meetings was
very high because of their previous very good reputation among other students in general.
Other three members have lost a great deal of trust just at the early beginning. Their suggested
solution was to confront those two members and if that will not work, to ask the professor to
facilitate.
The team had a lack of self-confidence, trust and commitment. No one actually liked the first
project. The team did not build trust, did not face conflicts (everyone agreed on the project
that they actually did not like), there was no commitment, huge avoidance of accountability
(three of five team members said: “I did not want to do this project anyway!”), no results were
discussed.
The team held very unproductive meetings. Nobody really wanted to take any responsibility.
It seemed like other members were almost relieved when a member did not show up nor did a
task which would enable them to move forward. Excuses such as: “We cannot do that, if he
did not call that person…” meetings were without agenda and got sidetracked over and over
again. It often happened that a few meetings went by before a single decision was made.
They did not respect goals and no changes were made to norms when they changed the
project. Norms were not taken seriously. The team thought it was just the list that needs to be
put together for the professor. They tried to think what he wants them to write down and what
sounds nice. They were not set as a guidelines and nobody felt engaged.
The team had serious trouble with deciding on goals, processes and they skipped the step of
putting together a good foundation of norms.
8.2.2 Pointless meetings
Lack of trust was huge in the first month. When some members did not confirm their
attendance at the meeting by e-mail, other members were often asking themselves: “Will they
show up?”
When choosing a project, members kept avoiding responsibility: “That will never work. That
takes too much time. We do not have that much time.”
Nobody came prepared for the meetings. After one hour of brainstorming, the team left the
meeting without any useful idea. There was no agenda and no minutes were taken.
32
The only surprising thing that happened was when a team member confronted members who
were not attending on a regular basis. She spoke out how she feels uncomfortable because
people just do not show up and how she feels that they need to communicate more and how
everyone should attend. Some promises were made and later on broken, which further
destroyed the possibility of evolving trust among members.
Norms were still not respected and the team has slowly started to form implicit or silent
norms, which were very counterproductive. One of them was: “It is okay if you do not show
up for the meeting and if you do not answer any emails?”
8.2.3 Making a first decision after a month and a half
After a month and a half of not being able to make a decision, the team finally discovered that
members should come prepared for their meeting. Meetings were still without an agenda, and
very unproductive.
The team’s mentality was: “We are probably the worse team ever.” Lack of self-esteem and
trust was visible in the communication. Members who felt they were in the minority
addressed their thoughts very carefully.
“I am not willing to commit,” said at least two members. But this idea was repeated over and
over again when the first member tried to express himself and his indifference towards the
project. Sucker aversion quickly took place. The “agreement” was pushed exactly by that
member who was the least willing to commit. Nobody confronted the decision and the project
was chosen by the criteria: what takes the least time and effort and shows some decent results.
Member’s enthusiasm and commitment were appropriate to that.
Roles were finally assigned and the workload was distributed equally. The project was
changed, but no new goals were set and no timeline was formed. Team still did not set clear
goals and roles.
8.2.4 Getting down to work
Team did not have a physical space to hold a meeting; no one booked a room. Preparation for
the meeting was poor again, and the meeting went on without an agenda.
The team set a meeting with the professor, without knowing what they wanted to talk about.
The team had problems with planning; they were making decisions without covering the
basics. Meetings were a big confusion, as there were no timelines. No clear roles and
responsibilities, no meeting structure, no agreement on processes. Meetings were not
productive; members were jumping from one topic to another without making any
conclusions or solving any problems.
33
Confusion was also with roles: “Who is doing this?” And by the e-mail: “Can everyone please
make ANY sort of poster promoting the book drive and/or exchange, print off 30 copies, and
put them up around TOMORROW.” Sometimes members were so confused about the roles
and they also did not trust each other, that task was done by two people. They had two
advertising Facebook groups instead of one, three types of posters and two types of book
markers.
The professor suggested that the team conduct a survey; the team did a small survey and
tailored the results. Survey showed there is no need for their project. “The project was easy
and not time consuming, so we are going to do it anyway,” pointed out the least committed
member who was pushing all the ideas.
Without a plan and clear roles, no one took the responsibility. They were often making things
in vain:” Maybe we should tailor the flyers to be just a generic 'book swap' so that something
happens and is 'successful' whether we get permission from the Commerce Office (in time) or
not?? I don't want to advertise something that can't happen.” This is an example of how they
were preparing for advertising before they even got the permission, it is hard to follow small
and organized step if you have not decided on them yet.
The team had major problems discovering the method to get to their goal, and their goal was
not set clearly.
The team was dealing with problems when they became unavoidable, and all the thing were
falling apart. Because overall commitment was so low, eventually nobody cared if a member
did a good or poor job, no one was held accountable. Norms established were permitting
skipping a meeting and shutting off the phone when you were supposed to deliver a result.
No conflicts emerged. No conflicts were resolved. Members probably felt like they are not
committed and they are not contributing, so it does not matter if everyone did the same thing.
A few times questions as: “What do we do next? Is this the end of the project?” popped up
every time when they faced an obstacle. And they went on unanswered. Communication got
even worse and effected coordination. One member was supposed to pick up the books, she
did not: “Hi, I haven't heard form Ann today, nor Mark. I am afraid we should do it another
day. Please get back to me ASAP”. Library staff waited for them. A person, who should get
the permission to put the bookshelf in the room, just did not respond to any calls, emails.
Overall members were angry and confused: “In the future... emails cannot be exchanged at
5pm for a 6pm meeting... I think a phone call would be a better means of communication...
and we could have made a much better decision ... as now we have broken a promise to
Kingston public libraries to pick up the books... which isn't really cool considering they have
been nothing but generous to us... Someone please explain what we are to do now?
Am I still making a portal post for Monday? How about booking a table..?” This led so far
that at the end nobody was doing anything because they were not able to rely on their team
mates anyway, so why bother.
34
Disorganized not clearly defined processes and interdependency that go hand in hand do not
turn out well.
8.2.5 New norms
Canceling attendance before the meeting and being late for twenty minutes went away
without sanctions from other team members. Doing nothing at all and canceling things at the
last moment was happening all the time. Still meetings went on without an agenda, no clear
goal or roles were set. Mistakes made in past in the process were still going on and nobody
noticed because there were no reviews. Members were not passionate, engaged, or committed.
The easiest way out was still the common norm of all members.
Members literally asking for feedback of other members do not receive any answer.
8.2.6 First breakthrough
After two months the team still operated without any timelines, clear roles, goals or processes
and meetings were still held without an agenda. That caused the team coming back to the
problems that were already addressed but never solved. And those problems were growing.
They were stopping at irrelevant points without having basic things solved.
Commitment can be shown with this sentence: “I don't give a shit what will happen after we
get a grade.”
But the team finally discovers that they have no goal:” What is our goal? What is this project
about? Should we change it?” Doubts about the idea came up again; members discovered that
nobody is actually committed.
The team for the first time started to write down assigned tasks, roles and setting timelines.
First time accountability is clearly set. Even agenda for the next meeting was set. For the first
time they actually talked about how things are not working for them and they even showed an
attempt of making their performance better.
They discovered how their communication is inefficient. Believing more frequent meetings
can solve that, they set a few additional meetings.
No one thought about the norms, they were violated even at this meeting, one person was not
attending and the cell phone was used by other two members.
35
Members after the meeting confessed they feel much better about their project and the team.
And they clearly expressed willingness to commit more.
8.2.7 Everything went back to “normal”
The first meeting after the meeting where some attempt to set things right everything went
back to “normal.” Not a single member showed up on time. Two members did not attend at
all, one sent a brief message a few minutes before the meeting and other member did not
make any effort to communicate to others. Other three members came with assigned tasks
done. They did not use the agenda set on the previous meeting and had no idea what to do:”
So, did anyone do anything? Oh, yes, when do we want to meet next time to discuss
everything?” Decisions were postponed again and the meeting lasted for five minutes.
8.2.8 Project is done
The project itself was very simple and it was done with two weeks delay. This was the last
meeting to discuss results and prepare report. No one showed up on time. When members
started to enter the room, they were asking themselves:” Did anyone sent an email to
confirm?” One member came prepared and has done a lot of work for presentation. Other
members were surprised and impressed. That member actually ignored all long talks how
something will be done, and took action.
This meeting had no agenda again: “What are we doing?” The team was discussing results
and they devoted the most of their time discussing how they can adapt their report to please
the professor. The meeting already lasted for 40 minutes before anything was resolved. The
team was occupied with booking a room for next meeting, without knowing what that
meeting will be for. This was their usual way to postpone the decisions and work.
One of their key comments about their work together:” It is hard because people didn't really
like the project and commit.” And: “If one person could not do it everything stopped.”
To look at the goals and norms after three months of team functioning together:
Goals:
z
z
z
z
z
z
To make all important decisions by consensus
Equally participate to planning and execution of the project
To insure all team members build personal relationship among each other during entire
project
To promote personal growth and development
To achieve a minimum mark of 100%
To raise a minimum of $1 500
36
Norms:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
All meetings start on time and occur on a regular basis.
Meetings should be productive and be ~1.5h.
Members come prepared for meetings.
All member need to be present when important decisions are made.
No Face book or email during meetings.
Meetings will follow an agenda.
Everyone contributes.
Members respect one another.
Everyone listens to one another.
Set goals and timelines. Set early deadlines in case there are unanticipated delays.
Everyone is aware of deadlines and will keep them.
Announce travel plans early.
Responsibility and accountability for actions.
End each meeting with an overview of everyone’s responsibilities and prepare an
agenda for the next meeting.
Reply to emails within 24 h.
Goals achieved: NONE
Norms respected or reorganized: ONE
9 DISCUSSION
9.1 Primary research question and first subsidiary question
The primary research question was: What challenges will a newly formed and inexperienced
real self-directed team face, when the team composition is flawless (ideal size, diversity and
skill sets) and the team has a supportive environment?
First subsidiary questions: How can those challenges be solved or prevented?
Below are my findings on primary research question, combined with the answer to the first
subsidiary research question.
9.1.1 Influencing commitment
Challenge: Early at the beginning a single team member told the team how he is not willing
to commit, performance of the team went down. After a while other members were saying the
same thing and acting the same way.
Symptoms:
• Low commitment can result in putting more energy into concerns than executing the
work (Becker-Reems, 1994, pp. 69).
37
• One low committed team member can start to encourage other team members not to
commit and sucker aversion emerges (Thompson, 2007, pp. 33).
• All team members might start to blame each other for the failures and they do not try to
seek for the solution (Tjosvold, 1986, pp. 299). There is an example statement from
one of team members during the meeting: „There is no problem with the project,
problems are with team members. “
Solution: Commitment can be gained through having the right goal (Hackman, 2002, pp.
207). High-performing teams have a strong commitment to the task and to the members
(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, pp. 9).
9.1.2 Unclear and inappropriate goals
Challenge: Team had unclear and inappropriate goal. They struggled to define their common
goal. The criterion of choosing a project was to pick something easy which gives decent
results. They also failed to break the final goal down into the smaller goals.
They thought there is an easy way out because no specific processes were acquired and they
could set their own goal. Members believed that with a little effort and no commitment the
team still can get satisfying performance.
Some symptoms of badly chosen and unclear goal:
• Problems with commitment.
• Because the selected project was not divided into smaller goals, team faced
coordination problems and they were not able to set clear rules about processes and
roles. Goals provide the direction for team design and task distribution. Unclear goals
can be the cause of work distribution confusion or inefficient workload distribution
(Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 247). They also can enable to hold people accountable for
their tasks (Lencioni, 2003, pp. 38)
• Poor accountability.
• Unclear goals can cause poor interpersonal relations. Lack of clear goal can cause that
people perceive someone’s suggestions as a way to gain personal benefits what will
led to the poor trust (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 121). Poor performance and bad
communication can result in having various interpersonal conflicts (Lencioni 2003,
pp. 38).
Teams can make a mistake of having a one major goal and no small and measurable goals on
their way to the final objective. Yeatts and Hyten (1998, pp. 121) discovered that a lack of
measurable goals will lead to bad performance. The team will spend a lot of time trying to
find their goals, and not on actual execution of the tasks. Not breaking the goals into small
goals and not celebrating achievements can influence the commitment and team’s perception
of being able to accomplish the desired task. As it happened to the observed team, their
perception and prediction of their success was very pessimistic: “We are the worst team ever”.
Group potency defined by the Shea and Guzzo (1987, pp. 25) is the belief of group members
38
that the group can be effective in achieving their goals. The research done by Jordan, Field
and Armenakis (2002, pp. 140 -143) shows how it is more important for team’s success if the
team is thinking how they can do it than cohesion itself or actual ability of the team.
Solution: Team has to change and clearly define the goal and break it into the smaller goals.
Self-directed teams cannot be successful if they do not have clear direction. Good direction
attracts team member’s commitment, orients attention and action, and engages team
member’s talents. And good direction has to be challenging, clear, and consequential
(Hackman, 2002, pp. 207). The team chose the “easiest” project, but they forgot that goals
need to be set high enough because they will influence the commitment and effort allocation
of the members (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 245).
Effective goal setting can be improved by effective meetings (Harrington-Mackin, 1996, pp.
70).
9.1.3 Norms not respected
Challenge: Team failed to set relevant norms, this is why they were not respected and they
were replaced by some counter-productive norms without the team even being aware of it.
Ground rules have to be made and agreed on by all team members. This is the only way we
can ensure the long term buy-in from all team members.
Symptoms: Norms influence every process in the team. By having efficient norms, most of
the challenges could be prevented.
Solution: Ryner (1996, pp. 77) believes if the solid and clear set of norms is not established at
the beginning, norms will develop itself with time. Those are not controlled and can be
counterproductive. Team has to consciously select rules by which they want to operate. Ryner
suggests that core norms has to include how meetings has to be most effectively conducted,
how decisions can be most effectively made, how leadership is shared among the members,
and how a constructive feedback is given inside the team.
On the other hand Hackman (2002, pp. 105) suggests that norms can be formed spontaneously
after time when team discovers what works the best. But he also gives a warning that this
option should be reconsidered, because at the beginning members tend to focus more on
interpersonal relationships and avoid conflicts. In any case, when norms are established on
purpose or not, they are really hard to change (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 60) that is why I
believe no team should leave norm formation to the coincidence.
Decision supported by every team members will engage everyone more than decision made
by one person. The same thing is with norms. Norms supported by every team member will
engage everyone. If decision is accepted and one team members does not like it, the team
members should inform group from the beginning if there were other options. Openness of
39
one member will foster openness of other members and decision made will be respected by
every individual (MacKenzie, 1979, pp. 49).
9.1.4 Procrastinating with decision
Challenge: The team has been caught in a circle of continuous debates without actions being
set or taken. Also a lot of time was spent on endless debates and members were not able to see
the relevant information or they were avoiding taking any further steps into implementation of
the project.
Symptoms:
• No decisions made.
Some teams avoid making the decision, until is too late (Ryner, 1996, pp. 109). Often the
consequences of not making the decision are worse than making any decision.
• No actions taken: avoidance of accountability and avoidance of responsibility
“We are still waiting for…” or “It is too late/ too time consuming to do it anyway,” those and
similar statements prove that members are avoiding responsibility.
• Lack of commitment.
• Motivational drop.
• No trust.
• Closed communication; common information effect, and having a dysfunctional
decision-making climate.
• Unclear decision –making process.
Solution: It is hard to make decision, when the primary goal is very unclear and
inappropriate. Some avoidance of making decisions or taking actions is a consequence of not
having a compelling, energizing and clear direction, which would engage members and make
them more interested to achieve it (Hackman, 2002, pp. 207).
This challenge is also lot about the lack of trust among team members. Strong norms can help
foster the trust by ensuring that members, who volunteer for a certain task, will also provide
results. Norms shape accepted and unaccepted behavior and those individuals, who act in a
predictive way, will be trusted more. People trust others based on assumptions that these
others will behave in a certain way (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, pp.714).” Team
members did not trust that other members will do their part of the task, that is why they
avoided taking any responsibility and they were not accountable. Social loafing and sucker
aversion were present in the team. Those would occur very rarely when members believe that
other members will do their assigned tasks (Robbins, 1995, pp. 341).
In order to contribute, team members have to have a clear idea what is their role and what are
the expectations of other members. Having an action plan, what, when, whom and resources
needed, can help members keep accountable (Ryner, 1996, pp. 156). On the other hand
sometimes members are afraid to take responsibility, because they can fail the team. Team
40
members should establish a culture, where mistakes are allowed to be made and taking more
responsibility can also be encouraged by a good incentive system in the organization
(Harrington-Mackin, 1996, pp. 13).
MacKenzie (1979, pp. 49) suggests that consensus should be used for reaching the decision as
well as clear procedures of decision making process should be known an accepted by
everyone in the team. Decision making process has to be efficient. Starting with
brainstorming and discussion, narrowing down to the solution reached by a consensus
(Harrington-Mackin, 1996, pp. 70). Decisions reached by consensus have in general support
of those who helped reaching it. Those people are also willing to take more responsibility
Consensus can be made if everyone is aware of the rules: no one should accept the decision
he or she might not like (MacKenzie, 1979, pp. 49). Teams that fail to disagree and express
their different views will revisit the same issues over and over again (Lencioni, 2003, pp. 38).
That is why open communication is so important. Team that have good communication in
decision-making process are far more successful than teams who have dominant members
(Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 69) because open communication means that more options are
being discussed and more information evaluated so the team will more likely choose the best
procedure (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, pp. 85).
9.1.5 Unproductive meetings
Challenge: First problem was attendance. Individuals skipped meeting many times without
making any effort to communicate their absence in advance.
It happened more than often that question: “So, what are we doing today?” came out at the
beginning of the meeting. At one meeting only after first five minutes all attending members
discovered that they do not have anything to discuss at that time.
The team usually brainstormed their ideas, but no one actually came prepared, what affected
meeting productivity.
Sidetracked conversations were a big part of the usual meeting routine.
Symptoms:
• Poor interpersonal relations (lack of trust).
• Inefficient task distribution and decision-making process (lack of accountability).
• Motivation and commitment are dropping.
Solution: When a team norm is powerful enough, deviant behaviors are rare in the team; such
as being late for the meeting or not attending the meeting (Hackman, 2002, pp. 105). My
opinion is that members did not think they will miss anything if they skip a meeting because
there were so many meetings where nothing happened. Lencioni suggests (2005, pp. 10) that
meetings can be perceived as unnecessary evil, if they are not properly structured. They
should have made it clear what meeting was for and what was expected of every participant.
Agenda has to be set in advance (Ryner, 1996, pp. 78). If the agenda is known in advance,
41
team members will likely come more prepared to the meeting. Ryner (1996, pp. 78) suggests
that the best way to plan the meeting is a PATIO process. Purpose, agenda, time, information
and outcome should be written down to prevent the team to be sidetracked and not efficient.
Poorly planned meetings will give poor results. The effectiveness of the meeting itself highly
depend on the fact how well participants are going to be prepared for the meeting.
Interruptions will happen in every meeting, team members have to know how to get
immediately back on track in order to keep the meeting productive (Ryner, 1996, pp. 122).
Some other suggestions for affective meeting from MacKenzie (1979, pp. 47): members
should pay attention to real and “hidden agenda,” carefully listen and observe also non-verbal
behavior. His suggestion is also to address those hidden agendas if members can spot it. If
there is missing information and there are unresolved issues, team members should assign one
or more people to obtain the data for the next meeting.
9.1.6 Bad performance management (confrontation of issues)
Challenge: The team was facing same problems over and over again; attendance, poor
communication, unclear goal and roles, etc. Their performance was not improving.
Symptoms:
• Making a mistake without learning from it.
• Avoiding to give feedback because of the conflict avoidance.
Solution: Review of results has to be a regular practice in order to assure the performance.
Many teams make mistakes of not going back, reviewing the tasks, methods and outcomes.
Team has to make sure that they are in charge of monitoring their progress and correcting the
mistakes made on their way to the goal. If they do not pay enough attention to their outcomes
on their way, they can get badly sidetracked and their performance will not improve if they
stick to the processes which do not work.
In self-directed teams every member gives feedback. Feedback should be constructive to help
correct negative behaviors, develop new capabilities and reinforce the desired actions (Ryner,
1996, pp. 112). Disruptive team members have to receive feedback, otherwise their behavior
will continue in it will in a long run have a negative impact on the team effectiveness.
Members have to understand that very rarely someone is destructive and difficult on the
purpose. By addressing the issue, member can receive the training (if the case is lack of
knowledge), or misunderstanding can be solved. Feedback should be immediate with a goal
of open dialogue not a punishment (Ryner, 1996, pp. 109).
Open communication is important for learning from mistakes and for building trust (Yeatts &
Hyten, 1998, pp. 79). Some teams avoid getting into the conflict; task related conflicts then
grow into relationship conflicts (Harrison et al., 1995, pp. 25). When members avoid
42
addressing issues there is impossible to make a real commitment (Lencioni, 2003, pp. 38).
9.1.7 Spending time on creating excuses
Challenge: Team was spending a lot of time trying to find out what would professor like to
hear, instead of looking for ways to actually solve their issues.
Symptom:
• When results have to be explained to the supervisor, teams usually devote a lot of time
to finding the explanation for their supervisor. Usually they spend even more time on
that than they do on actually solving their performance issues (Harrington-Mackin,
1996, pp. 70).
Solution: Having open, non judgmental communication, appropriate performance
management: appraisal and reward system. Mistakes have to be allowed as a part of
organizational culture (Harrington –Mackin, 1996, pp. 13).
9.1.8 Peer evaluation
Peer evaluation findings are a bit more optimistic than my observational findings. I used five
point scales ranging from; 1 is rarely, 2 is sometimes, 3 is most of the time, 4 is usually and 5
is always. Questions covered all observation areas: respect, support, trust, communication,
commitment, accountability satisfaction with results and satisfaction with interpersonal
relationships.
Trust: Range of trust was from never (1) to always (5) according to different team member; it
was clear how subgroups inside the team started to form. On average team members trusted
others most of the time (3).
Communication: In general team believed their communication was always perfect (5). I
think this result is based on their perception of having good communication. They taught a
good communication is only about listening at the meeting and not interrupting other person
when he speaks. I made this conclusion because in the open-ended question some members
complained about the communication and not getting any response. Furthermore, when
question varied and it addressed how many times team members dealt effectively with
conflict, the answer was most of the time (3).
Support: Team members only sometimes (2) felt supported by their team members. One
individual also made a comment how members were too different to support and respect each
other.
Respect: It is interesting how members felt more respected but less supported by their mates.
The overall felt respected most of the time (3).
43
Commitment: Team members were committed most of the time (3).
Accountability: Team members were accountable most of the time (3).
Satisfaction with results: Half of the members were satisfied with the project outcome, but
everyone believed it could be better.
Interpersonal relationship satisfaction: The question was if team members would want to
work with other members of the team again. It was again very noticeable how sub groups of
two were formed. Every team member would change at least a half of the team.
Additional comments:
• Team members addressed the poor communication issue and how e-mail
communication was not working at all.
• They expressed concern with process of getting to their goal.
• They expressed opinion how their different schedules affected commitment of the
members. I believe this is external attribution effect (Shmitt & Branscombe, 2002, pp.
620); where a team explains something as a force outside their control. Because this
was truly a simple matter of a failed commitment.
• One team member commented on how this form of teamwork is a good way to be
“pushed to achieve a goal”.
• One member raised concern how she was overly judged for missing many meetings.
She felt her behavior was the same as others who completely got away. There was no
discussion about her attendance at any meeting. Because conflicts were not addressed
some people perceived things were worse than they actually were.
It was interesting how the two international students were ranged lower in every single
characteristic. It was probably because team was not functioning together a long time and
liking based on similarity was still strong.
I believe team members were not completely honest in their responses. Limitations of peer
evaluation and research are discussed further in chapter 9.4.
9.2 Secondary subsidiary question findings
The second subsidiary question is: How can we manage an inexperienced self-directing team
and get the team into high-performing state?
All described challenges in the sections 8.1 affect five basic interpersonal processes in selfdirected teams. In the table it is shown on which step they occur.
Table 5: Discovered challenges categorized into steps according to O’Grady model
44
Steps in O'Grady model
Step 1
TRUST and RESPECT
Step 2
CONFLICT & COMMITMENT
(Clear mission, goals and norms)
Step 3 ACCOUNTABILITY
(Leadership and organization)
•
Challenges found in research
Influencing commitment
•
•
Unclear and inappropriate goals
Norms not respected
•
Ineffective decision-making process and
procrastinating with decision
Unproductive meetings
Bad performance management
(confrontation of issues)
•
•
Step 4
INATENTION TO RESULTS
(Auditing/debriefing)
•
Step 5
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Spending time on creating excuses
As Lencioni (2006, pp. 6) discovered; if there is no trust, conflict cannot occur, without open
communication team cannot set engaging goal. Furthermore, without engagement people will
not want to participate and be accountable. Inattention to results happens when ego needs of
individuals are put before the team’s goal.
If all that happens, and there is no review to correct the performance, at the end of the project
we will have a poorly performing team.
Model based on Lencioni’s pyramid was developed by Professor Shawna O’Grady at the
Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The model is used also in team of MBA
students. Queen’s University has currently the number one MBA program in the World
outside the USA. Professor O’Grady addressed all possible problems in her model in order to
help self-directed teams reach high-performing state.
How this model can help with improving interpersonal relationships and changing the regular
self- directing team into a high–performance tam is discussed further on.
Figure 11: O’Grady model
Step 1: Develop respect among team members (members have to be
Supportive and Effective)
Step 2: Align purpose (Mission, Goals, and Norms)
Step 3: Clarify roles and Processes and Organization of the team
Step 4: Build in Auditing through Team Debriefing
Step 5: Results tied back to the performance management system and rewards
45
Synergy
Success
Source: © S. O’Grady, 2008.
Step 1: Team members can respect each other when they are willing to recognize each other’s
strengths. Members have to be supportive and effective; meaning that all members must put in
the equal amount of effort. In my research this did not happen, that is why sucker aversion
emerged. This is the step where trust is formed.
Lencioni’s advice (2002, pp.16): building trust takes time. Members should be as openminded as possible and share personal information.
Step 2: All team members have to agree on suitable and clear goals, norms, and mission. This
is the step where we need to have open communication that commitment can form.
Lencioni’s advice (2002, pp. 16): making everyone aware that conflict is not taboo.
Sometimes it is impossible for everyone to be completely satisfied with the decision. We
should try to achieve the buy-in from everyone somehow. Sometimes setting timelines
sometimes can help to get faster decisions and commitment, because a team is force to make
immediate decision.
Step 3: Team has to clearly define roles and processes that individuals can be held
accountable for their tasks.
Lencioni’s advice (2002, pp. 16): Peer pressure, holding each other accountable helps.
Step 4: Team has to regularly review their performance. They have to review basics; norms,
goals and mission and make necessary changes. When they change goal, they have to adjust
also processes and assign new roles. This never happened in the team that was part of the
research.
Step 5: Performance management system and rewards have to support desired behaviors, give
feedback and provide coaching.
Lencioni’s advice (2002, pp. 16): have clear goals and reward expected behaviors.
Step 6: Success!
Steps from one to five are enabling all five characteristics to help the team succeed. When
following those steps a team will face a lot less challenges. Self-directing structure can
provide great results, but we must not forget that inexperienced self-directing teams do need
some non- delegating guiding.
9.3 Premise and autonomy- related challenges
Premise developed from the primary research question was that inexperienced self-directing
work team will face autonomy related challenges at the early beginning of familiarization
with the new work structure, which will affect their performance.
46
My definition of inexperienced work teams takes into consideration the structure of the team
and the amount of the autonomy that the structure has. I define inexperienced work team as a
team who can have previous team experience, but has no experience with working in a new
structure, in my research that is a self-directing structure.
There are not many authors who would directly discuss how previous teamwork experience
can help to improve team’s performance. Experiences with the teamwork are not directly part
of any model who describes performance related factors. Indirectly all authors emphasize the
importance of feedback, learning, interpersonal skills and coordination skills, and expert
coaching.
Researchers frequently use the terms autonomy and empowerment interchangeably. Both refer
to the concept of giving teams increased opportunity to decide on their own courses of action
(Stewart, 2006, pp. 34)
During my research observation I have discovered many characteristics which support the
premise. Inexperienced self-directed work team was overwhelmed by the “freedom” and had
difficulties deciding on their goals, norms, roles and processes. The team tried to find the
easiest way to satisfying results. By trying to do this, some fatal errors were made and their
performance was poor.
The performance of the team did not reach a high-performing level.
According to Thompson’s (2007, pp. 39):
• Members did not grow personally, there was no knowledge transfer.
• Cohesion was very low (according to the peer evaluation every team member would
change at least half of members in the team).
• I could not evaluate the project mark, because the assessment criterion was not
credible.
• No integration was necessary.
9.3.1 Can a self-directed team have too much authority?
Challenges in the team related to having too much autonomy: In my research the team
failed to set clear goals, roles and processes. They also failed to set the right timelines and
allocate resources.
Solution: Ryner (1996, pp. 30) thinks that some constraints or boundaries that should be
pointed out when self-directed team with no experience is formed: timeline (specify
constraints), resources (specify maximum of available resources), equipment, authority (what
is team’s responsibility), philosophy (management principles under which team must work),
budget, location/physical space, safety, and legal/legislative constraints.
47
Harrington-Mackin (1996, pp. 9) claims team needs to know what empowerment is and what
is not. Empowerment is not having freedom whenever you want; giving people tasks you do
not want to do, disregarding organizational policies, ignoring commitments, and avoiding
accountability.
Ryner (1996, pp. 30) mentions the term team maturity gauge; it assesses experiences of the
team and the team’s capability of working as a self-directed unit. He believes the certain
abilities need to be demonstrated by the team such as; knowing the relevance of the
information and making the decision based on that, recognition how their actions influence
the whole organization environment, understanding and willingness to fully meet customer
needs, capability to identify and solve the problem, capability to improve with time and give
constructive feedback to other team members, and willingness of the full engagement of the
entire team. To assure the good start of the team, supervisor should not control the team, but
adjust its boundaries in order to fit the team’s maturity.
Figure 12: Difference between setting boundaries and controlling
Source: Ryner, Team traps, 1996, pp. 33.
In my opinion an inexperienced self-directed team can have too much authority. It was hard
for members to switch from a delegating structure to the structure where you are responsible
for everything. Autonomy is not only freedom; it is also a lot of responsibility.
Empowerment can be misunderstood or abused; employees with poor decision-making
48
process and lack of judgment can make very bad decisions (Elmuti, 1997, pp. 235-236). Even
bigger problem is when employees have trouble seeing limits of their autonomy (Sirkin, 1993,
pp. 58).
We can use boundaries and slowly start to add more responsibilities so individuals can get
used to it, we also can manage the process with providing enough coaching. It is very
dangerous to give an inexperienced team as much power as they need and move away. Like in
the research, team faced some challenges which conveyed into interpersonal conflicts. After
that, it is very hard to overcome the loss of trust. On the other hand we have to be careful not
to suppress the engagement and creativity if boundaries are too strict.
The research by Bacon, Stewart and Silver (1999, pp. 481) showed that goals and processes
need to be clearly introduced to get the team to high-performance. They believe that the
hardest part is to set goals and processes which are not too narrow to suffocate creativity and
not to broad to cause confusion.
Like in the table below, we cannot have high-performing team if we control it. It might be
stressful and unproductive in the short term, but as soon as team members learn how to deal
with it, there can be some great results (Hirschhorn, 1991, pp. 96).
Table 6: Risks and gains of having or not having a control over the team
Learner role
Control Role
Risks
“Egg on your face” in the short
run
Less ability to improve
performance
Gains
Accurate information
Improved performance
Feel in control in the short run
Source: Hirschhorn & Addison-Wesley, Managing in the new team environment, 1991, pp. 97.
Ongoing coaching is necessary (Wageman, Hackman & Lehman, 2005, pp. 378), but the team
has to get extended training even before it starts to function.
My guess is that the researched team might have set irrelevant norms because there were
some examples shown in the class, but nobody actually understood the purpose of the norms.
They were perceived as “something we need to hand in to the professor and we can forget
about it”, not as a helping framework for work and interpersonal processes. When the concept
of norms is introduced to the inexperienced self-directing team, we have to make sure that
members clearly understand the purpose of norms and see them as a helpful tool which can be
very destructive when wrongly managed.
The team was not used to having a broadly defined direction and not a specific goal. That is
why it took them quite a lot of time to figure it out, and they still failed to do it properly. By
having a good feedback system and by reviewing results, team would have made some
49
changes. That is why team also has to receive more training on goal setting and performance
management. The same goes to all other processes including decision-making, and having
more productive meetings.
Members can learn from their mistakes and get more experienced, they just need to know
what tools to use to look back at their results and what to look at. The researched team was
trying to make some attempts to improve the situation, but they were not sure what is wrong.
They set new agenda, they defined roles, but they did not revisit the norms. Nothing
functioned. Frustration was even bigger.
A lot of teams who were in the same class were saying at the end of the project how they
finally understand it. They never took time to review what was going on until they had to
write a report. At that point everything became clear. That is why I believe that an
inexperienced self-directed team makes a lot more mistakes than an experienced self-directed
team. I doubt that any of teams would consciously do the same mistake again. Their
performance would improve because they would be able to focus more on tasks than solving
unmanageable interpersonal problems. They would also know what to change if they spot a
certain symptom, so that would not grow into a big problem.
The same discovery was made by the Watson, Kumar and Michaelsen (1993, pp. 599). They
were comparing the performance of homogeneous and diverse teams over the time and fond
that both groups experienced process and performance improvements during the course of the
study. They got clear evidence that the performance characteristics of newly formed groups
are unquestionably different from those of longer-term groups. Researching the effect of
experience was not their primary study intention, but they strongly suggested that some
researches should be made.
To conclude, implementation of empowered team structure and development into highperforming unit takes time, training, communication and a lot of hard work and support
(Elmuti, 1997, pp. 238).
In any case, some in depth research should be conducted in order to discover whether
experience of working in the certain team structure help to improve the team performance.
9.4 Limitations of the study
There are some limitations of this research. Only one team of five people was examined; the
sample is too small to generalize. There was no control team to compare efficiency according
to dealing with autonomy challenges among inexperienced and experienced team.
Peer evaluation results might be biased. My thesis co-mentor was the team’s professors and I
think the team did not perceive the questionnaire as anonymous. Questions that I used were
mostly close-ended. When assessing peer evaluations it came clear that open-ended questions
50
would be much more rewarding, since team members were more than willing to “complain”
about their issues. They were writing comments next to close-ended questions. I also
discovered that most of them did not have an idea what good communication is, how support
looks like and did not understand several other characteristics. I should have used operational
definitions to assure members would really understand what I was trying to measure. Scale
used in the questionnaire had five points, this might have caused result tendency towards the
middle.
There was no real organizational context, examined team members were students and not
employees. Research lasted a short period of time, and it is hard to get a real high-performing
team in three months. Finally, research is based on internal self-perception and it was not
validated by any outside source.
CONCLUSION
My research shows many possible challenges that teams face while trying to function or
trying to become a high- performing team. Even if the team composition is optimal and team
has a supportive environment, things can still go wrong when it comes to processes inside the
team and interpersonal relations. Both affect the team performance and have many
devastating side effects. The observed team had trouble with trust, managing conflict,
commitment, developing accountability and they do not pay enough attention to results. All
this characteristics which are mandatory in order to reach a high – performing state, are a part
of Lencioni’s pyramid. They are also a part of O’Grady model, which clearly shows how we
need to manage them and how we can manage them in order to establish a successful team.
Challenges as trouble with disrespect, having unclear goals and norms, having ineffective
decision – making process and unproductive meeting, being unable to have efficient and
beneficial performance management system and spending time on creating excuses, are only
few challenges that teams face. All of them are preventable and manageable.
Research findings showed a possibility for a new hypothesis, which could be tested in the
future research. Team members, who are inexperienced working in a team structure which
offers a significant level of autonomy, face challenges related to overwhelming feeling of
freedom. The research findings supported my premise that inexperienced teams will face
autonomy – related challenges, which will overall have a negative impact on the team’s
performance. Empowerment is crucial and it is mandatory if we want to create a team
structure which can reach a high – performance. That is why further research on the
correlation between teamwork experience and the team performance should be conducted. We
need to get a better insight into what actions should be taken in order to make the transition
from manager- led team to self- directing teams smoothly and efficiently, what would benefit
both, organizations and teams.
51
POVZETEK V SLOVENSKEM JEZIKU
V svojem diplomskem delu sem poskušala ugotoviti, s kakšnimi težavami se pri svojem
delovanju srečujejo samovodeni timi. Predlagala sem nekaj rešitev za težave, ki sem jih
identificirala v trimesečnem opazovanju tima in ugotovila, kolikšno vlogo pri uspešnosti tima
igrajo predhodne izkušnje članov tima z delom v določeni timski strukturi, glede na količino
avtoritete, s katero člani tima lahko razpolagajo.
Razlika med skupino in timom je v tem, da gre pri timskem delu za več sodelovanja in več
soodvisnosti med člani tima. Da pa bi dosegli visoko uspešnost tima, je potrebno iti še korak
dlje, in sicer imajo v tem tipu tima, ki dosega najvišje možne rezultate, ponavadi člani tima
več avtoritete in svobode kot v običajnih timih (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987, str. 757). Veliko
svobode pri odločanju predstavlja veliko možnost za presežke, lahko pa tudi velike težave, če
tim ni pravilno usposobljen.
Tim naj bi bil uspešen pri svojem delovanju, če zadosti štirim dimenzijam. Tri izmed njih je
definiral Hackman (1989, str. 7). Prvič: rezultat delovanja mora zadostiti določenim stinardom
kvalitete, kvantitete ali časa, ki ga zahteva tisti komur je rezultat namenjen. Drugič: člani tima
postajajo z delom v timu bolj in bolj povezani. Tretjič: člani tima napredujejo, osebnostno
rastejo in se učijo od ostalih članov tima. Četrto dimenzijo je definiral Thompson (2007, str.
41), in sicer pravi, da je pomembno tudi to, kako tim sobiva z organizacijo, v kateri deluje.
Obstaja več modelov, ki navajajo dejavnike, ki vplivajo na uspešnost delovanja timov.
Thompson (2007, str. 23-25) je mnenja, da na uspešnost vplivajo: sama organizacija, v kateri
tim deluje, kompozicija tima in pa kultura tima. Hackman (2002, str. 206) pravi, da je za
uspešno delovanje tima najbolj pomembno to, da ima tim skupen cilj, ki je privlačen za vse
člane tima, hkrati pa mora biti tim sestavljen tako, da je sploh sposoben doseči zastavljeni cilj.
Tim mora imeti podporo celotne organizacije v smislu, da organizacija nudi izobraževanje,
dober informacijski sistem in dober sistem nagrajevanja. Katzenbach in Smith (1993, str. 9)
sta mnenja, da morajo člani tima imeti določene sposobnosti, morajo biti odgovorni in predani
52
skupnemu cilju, da lahko dosežejo uspešno delovanje. Yeatts in Hyten (1998, str. 25- 46) sta
naredila precej kompleksen model, ki je povzetek večih obstoječih modelov in zajela veliko
število dejavnikov. Najbolj sta poudarila, da na uspešnost tima vplivajo djavniki, o katerih je
govoril že Hackman pa tudi sami odnosi med člani znotraj tima.
Največ pozornosti sem posvetila modelu Lencionija (2003, str. 35 – 40), ki se osredotoča na
mehki del medčloveških odnosov znotraj tima. Pravi, da visoko uspešen tim nastane, ko gredo
člani skozi pet stopenj piramide, pri kateri naslednja stopnja ne more biti uresničena, če ni
tista pred njo. Člani tima morajo najprej zgraditi zaupanje, nato morajo imeti dovolj odprto
komunikacijo, da sproti rešujejo morebitne konflikte. Ko pridejo tako daleč, se pojavi prava
predanost skupnemu cilju, člani pa postanejo vse bolj pripravljeni prevzeti odgovornost in
delujejo v skupno dobro, egoistični cilji se podredijo želji po uspehu tima.
Oblikovanje tima
Preden tim lahko začne funkcionirati kot celota, ga je potrebno sestaviti. Avtorji, med njimi
tudi Thompson (2007, str. 80), pravijo, da je sprva potrebno definirati naloge, ki jih bo tim
opravljal, nato pa je potrebno poiskati ljudi s karakteristikami, ki ustrezajo nalogam. Pri tem
gre najbolj omeniti znanje, sposobnosti spretnosti, nekateri avtorji pa poudarjajo tudi pomen
osebnostnih lastnosti (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str. 59). Šele nato začnemo graditi na procesih,
ki se dogajajo znotraj tima.
• Znanja, izkušnje, spretnosti in sposobnosti posameznikov
Po analizi naloge moramo najti ljudi, ki čim bolj ustrezajo opravljanju določene naloge. Najti
je potrebno posameznike, ki imajo ujemajoča tehnična znanja za reševanje problema, ki imajo
ustrezne spretnosti za reševanje problemov, pa tudi ljudi, ki s poznavanjem medosebnih
odnosov znajo pravilno ravnati v primeru konfliktov, znajo sprejeti in dati kritiko in nasploh
nuditi podporo ostalim članom tima (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, str. 47). Velika večina
strokovnjakov se strinja, da je v timu potrebno imeti ljudi s čim bolj raznolikimi spretnostmi,
znanjem in sposobnostmi, ki se med seboj dopolnjujejo.
Zanimala me je tudi vloga izkušenj s timskim delom pri uspešnosti delovanja tima. Rentsch,
Heffner in Duffy (1994, str. 451) so ugotovili, da več izkušenj s timskim delom pomeni tudi
boljše poznavanje timskega dela, posledično pa to prinaša manj zapletov in več rezultatov pri
timskem delu.
• Osebnost posameznikov
Še vedno ni popolnoma jasno, kako posameznikova osebnost vpliva na uspešnost tima.
Rentsch, Heffner in Duffy (1994, str. 451) pravijo, da osebe, ki nimajo občutka, kako reagirati
na čustva in potrebe ostalih ljudi, timu prinašajo slabše delovne rezultate. Costa in McCrae
(1995, str. 5-13) pa sta identificirala pet lastnosti, ki naj bi olajšale timsko delo: vestnost,
ekstravertiranost, doslednost, odprtost za nove izkušnje in emocionalno stabilnost. Vsekakor
se je potrebno zavedati, da določene osbnostne lastnosti lahko delujejo pozitivno pri
53
določenih nalogah, pri drugih pa ne. Zato je potrebno poudariti, da smo vsi ljudje lahko dobri
člani tima, če smo pravilno izbrani v tim glede na nalogo, ki jo tim opravlja (Mohammed &
Angell, 2008, str. 651 - 677).
• Velikost tima
Najprimernejši naj bi bili timi z enomestnim številom članov (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str. 85).
Najboljše odločitve se ponavadi sprejmejo v malo večjih timih (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str.
94), zato tim ne sme biti premajhen. Res pa je, da je v manjših timih lažje doseči dobro
komunikacijo med vsemi člani tima in posledično boljšo kohezivnost (Yeatts & Hyten , 1998,
str. 101). Prav težava z oslabljeno komunikacijo v velikih timih je problem, da ponavadi pride
do medosebnih konfliktov (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str. 260). Pride lahko tudi do pojava
izogibanja odgovornosti, ko člani tima prenašajo odgovornost eden na drugega in nihče ne
prispeva svojega deleža (Darley & Latane, 1968). Dokazano je namreč, da se produktivnost
tima ne povečuje premosorazmerno s številom njegovih članov, ampak celo začne upadati
zaradi razpršene odgovornosti, če je tim prevelik (Steiner, 1972, str. 96).
• Različnost
Večja pestrost ponuja več možnosti za generiranje novih idej, pa tudi za medsebojno učenje
znotraj tima (Molleman & Timmerman, 2003, str. 109). Po drugi strani pa večja medsebojna
drugačnost pomeni tudi to, da imajo člani tima manj skupnega in to predstavlja nevarnost. Ker
so si ljudje, ki so si manj podobni, ponavadi manj všeč, si zaradi tega tudi manj zaupajo
(Glaman, Jones, & Rozelle, 1996, str. 211). Potrebno si je vzeti čas in zgraditi temelje, da vsi
člani tima vedo, kašna so pravila igre in kakšna so pričakovanja (Davison, 1994, str. 85). Ko
se enkrat zavedamo tega, je le še potrebno najti pravilno stopnjo pestrosti v timu, da so si vsi
posamezniki dovolj podobni, da radi sodelujejo in hkrati dovolj različni, da se lahko drug od
drugega učijo.
Procesi v timu
Procese v timu sem razdelila na medsebojne procese in na delovne procese (postavljanje
skupnih ciljev, dogovarjanje o načinu dela in postavljanje norm):
• Postavljanje skupnih ciljev
Dober skupni cilj mora članom tima predstavljati izziv, ki jih bo motiviral, mora biti jasen in
razdeljen v manjše cilje, ki si morajo logično slediti (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str. 245). Ti
manjši cilji morajo biti merljivi, da lahko tim oceni svojo uspešnost in tudi pravočasno
ukrepa, če ne zadosti pričakovanjem (Hirschhorn, 1991, str. 18).
• Dogovor o načinu dela
Tim se mora dogovoriti o načinu dela, ki jih bo pripelja do cilja. S tem, ko postavijo jasna
pravila o pristopu k doseganju cilja, si olajšajo koordinacijo, porabijo manj sredstev, časa in
energije za doseganje istega cilja (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str. 61).
54
• Postavljanje norm
Norme so osnova za delovanje tima. Tim jih mora postaviti sam, izbrane morajo biti skrbno in
vsi člani tima se morajo z njimi strinjati, saj so prav one tiste, ki uravnavajo vedenje
posameznikov znotraj tima (Hackman, 2002, str. 105) in jih je zelo težko spreminjati (Yeatts
& Hyten, 1998, str. 60).
Medsebojni procesi v timu
Pri medsebojnih procesih sem se osredotočila na Lencionijevih (2003, str. 36-38) pet pogojev,
ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da tim doseže visoko učinkovitost:
• Zaupanje
Zaupanje je pripravljenost, da se zanesemo na nekoga, ne da bi ga nadzorovali (Schoorman,
Mayer, & Davis, 2007, str. 346-347). Zaupanje lahko člani tima pridobijo na več načinov: s
tem, da sodelujejo, se ne zapletajo prepogosto v koflikte, so v svojih dejanjih predvidljivi,
pokažejo ranljivo plat, naredijo več dela kot bi bilo potrebno, so iskreni in pripravljeni
pomagati (Harrington-Mackin, 1996, str. 118). Ko tim enkrat pridobi zaupanje, se
posamezniki manj posvečaju ukvarjanju z medsebojnimi odnosi in več delu (Yeatts & Hyten,
1998, str. 103).
• Sprotno reševanje konfliktov
Konflikt je neskladje mnenj, lahko je pozitiven ali pa negativen. Pozitiven konflikt se nanaša
na konflikt o nalogi, ki daje kreativne in inovativne kompromise. Negativen konflikt pa se
osredotoča na neskladja med osebami, kar pa lahko predstavlja problem, ker si nasprotujoče si
osebe dokazujejo le to, kdo bo prevladal in ne upoštevajo, katera rešitev je najboljša za tim
kot celoto (Tjosvold, 1998, str. 287).
• Predanost
Predanost lahko razložimo kot energijo, ki jo posameznik vloži v določeno nalogo oziroma v
doseganje cilja (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998, str. 59). Kot že omenjeno, lahko predanost oseb
pridobimo s povečanjem količine avtonomije, s privlačno nalogo ali ciljem, ali pa s ponujeno
nagrado (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987).
• Prevzemanje odgovornosti
Cilji morajo biti jasno postavljeni in naloge jasno razdeljene, potem se morajo člani tima
potruditi, da se držijo izrečenih obljub in da v delo vložijo dovolj energije, da zadovoljijo
pričakovanja svojih kolegov v timu (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, str. 60).
• Rezultati
Vsi člani tima si morajo prizadevati k skupnemu cilju in svoje egoistične težnje temu
podrediti (Lencioni, 2003, str. 40). Tim mora redno preverjati, ali dosegajo zastavljene
rezultate in pravilno ukrepati, če temu ni tako (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, str. 61).
55
Organizacija
Tim je neposredno povezan z delovanjem organizacije. Organizacija lahko optimalno okolje
za delovanje tima vzpostavi z dobrim sistemom nagrajevanja, ki v pravi meri nagradi tako
individualno kot timsko delo (Heneman & Von Hippel, 1995, str. 63). Pomembno je tudi
ponujeno izobraževanje in usposabljanje. Hkrati pa so ugotovili, da je za pravočasen in
nemoten prenos informacij zelo pomemben tudi dober komunikacijski sistem (Yeatts &
Hyten, 1998, str. 83).
Raziskava
Tim, ki je bil predmet raziskave, je imel težave pri vseh petih procesih, ki jih je Lencioni
(2003, str. 36-38) omenil kot pomembne za doseganje visoke uspešnosti:
1. Vzpostavljanje zaupanja
Prvi korak modela rešuje problem nezaupanja in medsebojnega nespoštovanja. Tim je zaradi
enega samega nepredanega člana počasi popolnoma zgubil zaupanje in predanost vseh članov.
2. Sprotno reševanje konfliktov
Tim je imel težave z nejasasnimi in neprimernimi cilji, pa tudi z nespoštovanjem norm. Z
odprto komunikacijo je potrebno pristopiti k obojemu: postavljanju ciljev in norm, samo tako
lahko dosežemo predanost celotnega tima. Če člani tima ne bodo imeli občutka, da so imeli
možnost sodelovati pri nastajanju obojega, ne bodo zares motivirani.
3. Predanost
Če pričakovanja in cilji niso jasni, je težko sprejeti odločitev (Hackman, 2002, str. 207), kar se
je dogajalo tudi raziskovanemu timu. Prav tako zaradi nejasnih ciljev nihče ni mogel biti zares
predan nalogam.
4. Sprejemanje odgovornosit
Jasni niso bili cilji, pa tudi ne vloge posameznikov. Ker ni bilo prav nobene predanosti, so se
vsi spretno in z lahkoto izogibali vsakršne odgovornosti (Ryner, 1996, str. 156).
5. Rezultati
Tim je iskal izgovore za svojo neučinkovitost in prirejal podatke, ko je bilo treba rezulate
predstaviti zunanjim ljudem.
Težave zaradi avtonomije
Tim je imel težave s postavljanjem ciljev, norm, vlog in z razporejanjem sredstev. Nekateri
avtorji (Ryner, 1996, str. 30) predlagajo, da se timu postopoma dodeljuje več odgovornosti, da
ima čas pridobiti potrebne izkušnje.
56
Glavne napake, ki so se pojavljale v timu, so bile zaradi nerazumevanja namena norm in
ciljev, tim pa je taval v temi tudi zato, kr ni poznal orodij, kako se rešiti iz začaranega kroga.
Tim je potrebno naučiti, kako postaviti cilje, kako preveriti ali so na pravi poti in kako
sprejemati in dajati povratne informacije. Pomoč zunanjega strokovnjaka, ki lahko svetuje in
situacijo vidi neobremenjeno, je zelo dobrodošla, če tim tej osebi zaupa.
Potrebno se je zavedati, da večina timov pri svojem delovanju naleti na težave. Visoko
uspešni timi nastanejo prav zaradi velike avtonomije, ki ponuja možnost, da si tim sam
postavi cilje, ki so mu blizu in doseže višjo raven predanosti in s tem v doseganje ciljev vloži
več energije kot katerikoli drug tim. Pa tudi zaradi tega, ker timi sami lahko najdejo
najučinkovitejšo pot do tega cilja. Tim za visoko učinkovitost potrebuje veliko avtonomije,
vendar pa hkrati potrebuje tudi usposabljanje in izkušnje, da se pot proti vrhu ne konča kot že
zelo zgoden polom.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Alderfer, C.P. & Smith, K.K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 35-65.
Bacon, D.R., Stewart, K.A, & Silver, W.S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst
student team experience: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management
Education, 23 (5), 467-488.
Barrick, G., Stewart, M., Neubert, D., & Mount, M. (1998). Relating member ability and
personality to work team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Becker-Reems, E.D. (1994). Self-managed work teams in health care organizations.
Chicago: American Hospital Publications.
Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.
Small Group Research, 31 (1), 89-106.
Cohen, S. G., 1994;. Designing effective self-managing work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein
& D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Theories of
self-managed work teams (pp. 67–102). London: JAI Press.
Costa, P. & Mcrane, R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological assessment, 4,
5-13.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
Davison, S.C. (1994). Creating a High Performance International Team. Journal of
Management Development, 13 (2), 81-90.
Eggensperger, J.D. (2004). How far is too far? Lessons for business from military teams.
Team Performance Management, 10 (3/4), 53-59.
Elmuti. D (1997). Self-managed work teams approach: creative management tool or a
fad?. Management Decision, 35 (3), 233-239.
Ensley, M.D., Pearson, A.W., & Amason, A.C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of
new venture top management teams: cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance.
57
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (4), 365-386.
Glaman, J.M., Jones, A.P., & Rozelle, R.M. (1996), "The effects of co-worker similarity
on the emergence of affect in work teams", Group & Organization Management, 21 (2),
192-215.
Grayson, D. (1991). Self-Regulating Work Groups - An Aspect of Organizational
Change. International Journal of Manpower, 12 (1), 22.
Hackman, R. J. (1989). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for
effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J.R. (2002). Leading teams; Setting the stage for great performances. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 269-287.
Harrington-Mackin, D. (1996). Keeping the team going: a tool kit to renew and refuel
your workplace teams. New York: AMACOM.
Harrison, A.W., Thompson, K.R., Amason, A.C., & Hochwarter, W.A. (1995). “Conflict:
an important dimension in successful management teams”. Organizational Dynamics.
Fall, 20-35.
Heneman, R. L., & Von Hippel, C. (1995). Balancing Group and Individual Rewards:
Rewarding Individual Contributions to the Team. Compensation Benefits Review, 27, 6368.
Hirschhorn, L. (1991). Managing in the new team environment: skills, tools, and
methods. Addison-Wesley.
Isaken, S.G., & Lauer, K.J. (2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 11 (1), 74-86.
Janis, I.L. (1983). Groupthink (2nd ed.,revised). Boston: Houghton Miffin
Jones, G.R., & George, J.M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications
for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 531-546.
Jordan, M.H., Field, H.S., & Armenakis, A.A. (2002). The relationship of group process
variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group
research, 33(1), 121 – 150.
Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: creating the highperformance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management
Leadership. Public Administration Review, 62 (2), 231-241.
Klaver, N. (2005). The art of asking for help. Leader to leader, 49, 16-20.
Kur, E. (1996). The faces model of high performing team development. Management
Development Review, 9 (6), 25–35.
Latane, B., & Darley, J.M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The
causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 823-832.
Lencioni, P. (2002). Cure team dysfunctions. Executive Excellence, 19 (12), 16.
58
33. Lencioni, P. (2003). The trouble with teamwork. Leader to leader, 29, 35 - 40.
34. Lencioni, P. (2005). Death by meetings. Executive Excellence, 22 (11), 10.
35. Lencioni, P. (2006). Team dysfunctions: Identify the causes and cure. Executive
Excellence, 23 (12), 6.
36. Locke, E.A., & Lathan, G.P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of
the tunnel. American Psychological Society, 1(4), 240 – 246.
37. MacKenzie, D.G. (1979). Small-Group Process Skills: Necessary for Effective Meetings.
NASSP Bulletin, 63, 46-52.
38. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709 – 734.
39. McFarlin, D.B., Sweeney, P.D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35 (3), 626-637.
40. Mohammed S., & Angell, L.C. (2003). Personality Heterogeneity in Teams: Which
Differences Make a Difference for Team Performance?.Small Group Research, 34 (6),
651-677.
41. Molleman, E., Timmerman, H. (2003). Performance management when innovation and
learning become critical performance indicators. Personnel Review, 32 (1), 93-113.
42. O’Grady, S. (2008) interview and PowerPoint slides. Study material of the MBA course.
43. Pearce, J.A. III, & Ravlin, E.C. (1987). The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating
Work Groups. Human Relations, 40, 751 - 782.
44. Polley, D., & Ribbens, B. (1998). Sustaining self-managed teams: a process approach to
team wellness. Team Performance Management, 4 (1), 3-21.
45. Poole, P.P., Gray, B., & Gioia, D. A. (1990). Organizational script development through
interactive accommodation. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 212-232.
46. Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational
Dynamics, 23 (4), 19-32.
47. Rentsch, J.R., Heffner, T.S., & Duffy, L.T. (1994). You Know is What You Get from
Experience: Team Experience Related to Teamwork Schemas. Group Organization
Management, 19, 450- 469
48. Robbins, L.T. (1995). Social loafing on cognitive tasks: An examination of the “Sucker
effect”. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9 (3), 337 – 342.
49. Ryner, S.R. (1996). Team traps: survival stories and lessons from team disasters, nearmisses, mishaps, and other near-death experiences. New York: John Wiley.
50. Schnake, M. E. (1991). Equity in effort: The "sucker effect" in co-acting groups. Journal
of Management, 17, 41-55.
51. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of
organizational trust: past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2),
344-354.
52. Scott-Ladd, B., & Chan, C.C.A. (2008). Using action research to teach students to
manage team learning and improve teamwork satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 9 (3), 231–248.
53. Shea, G.P, & Guzzo, R.A. (1987).Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan
59
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
Management Review, 28(3), 25-31.
Shepperd, J.A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups. Psychological Bulletin,
113 (1), 67 -81.
Sherriton, J., & Stern, J.L. (1997). Corporate culture/Team culture, removing the hidden
barriers to the team success. New York: American management Association (Amacon).
Shmitt, M.T., Branscombe, N.R. (2002). The Internal and External Causal Loci of
Attributions to Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (5), 620-628.
Sirkin, H.L. (1993). The employee empowerment scam. Industry Week, October 18, 58.
Spreitzer, G.M., Cohen, S.G., & Ledfort, G.E. (1999). Developing Effective Self-directing
Work Teams in Service Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24 (3), 340366.
Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stewart, G.L. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design
Features and Team Performance. Journal of Management, 32 (1), 29 – 54.
Sundstrom, E.D., DeMeuse, K.P., & Futrell, D. (1990).Work teams: Application and
effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 120 -133.
Tata J. (2000). Autonomous work teams: an examination of cultural and structural
constraints, Work Study, 49 (5), 187-193.
Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R., & Tesluk, P.E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team
Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group &
Organization Management, 0, 1-36.
Thompson, L. (2007). Making the team: A guide for managers (3rd Ed.). Toronto:
Prentice hall.
Tjosvold, D. (1989). College, L., & Fraser, S. (1998). Cooperative and Competitive Goal
Approach to Conflict: Accomplishments and Challenges. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 47 (39), 285-342.
Wageman, R., Hackman, J.R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey:
Development of an Instrument. The journal of applied behavioral science, 41 (4), 373 –
398.
Watson, W.E, Kumar, K., & Michalesen, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on
interaction process and performance: Comparing homogenous and diverse task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590 – 602.
Williams, W.M., & Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are
better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351-377.
Yeatts, D.E, Cready C., Ray B., DeWitt, A., & Queen, C. (2004). Self-Managed Work
Teams in Nursing Homes: Implementing and Empowering Nurse Aide Teams. The
Gerontologist, 44 (2), 256-61.
Yeatts, D.E., & Hyten C. (1998). High- performing self-managed work teams; A
comparison of theory to practice. USA: Sage publications, Inc.
60