12. WORK GROUPS AND WORK TEAMS Most people do not work in isolation but work with other employees with whom they interact Work Group: Collection of people who interact and share common or interrelated task goals. Work Team: Work group with Common task goals and objectives Coordinated effort Specified roles Work group members may or may not work on the same tasks. Sales groups may work completely independently, each person with his or her own territory. Work team members work together to accomplish the common tasks. GROUP/TEAM CONCEPTS Roles Specialization of function within positions Formal: position title and description define with job analysis Informal: Emergent behavior in group Status Power & influence, prestige, respect Partially inherent in role Example Torrance study of B-26 crews Horse trading problem Buy a horse for $60 and sell it for $70 Buy it back for $80 and sell it again for $90 How much profit did you make? (Answer at end) 94% pilots, 80% navigators, 63% gunners convinced crew they had correct answer, which is in order of their status Norms Expected & accepted behavioral standards Productivity norms Dress norms Group Cohesiveness Attraction of group members toward staying in group High cohesive groups Lower turnover Stronger adherence to norms (homogenizer of behavior) Greater satisfaction Greater group influence Study Purcell (1953) Allow construction workers (carpenters & masons) choose own partners Results 5% reduction in costs (labor & materials) 87% decline in turnover Team Commitment Strength of an individual’s involvement in team and acceptance of team goals Team Mental Model Shared understanding of task by team members Process Loss Effort/time spent by team members on non-task activities See discussion below GROUP PERFORMANCE Individual vs. group Individual tasks in work groups: coacting effects Social facilitation Competition and arousal (audience) Social inhibition Distraction Group processes Arousal Group tasks: interdependence of group effort Assembly line: Performance = f(poorest individual) Additive: Performance = f(sum of individuals) CLASSIC STUDY OF PAJAMA FACTORY Coch & French (1948) Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532. Harwood pajama factory 600 Employees 5/6 women Piece rate for over standard (60/hr.) Some jobs take average 34 weeks to reach standard Frequent production changes: transfer bonus given Only 38% return to standard after a production change Low productivity after changes High turnover after change (12%/mo vs. 4.5% for nonchanged) Poor attitude, high absence after change Cohesiveness & change High cohesive, + attitude, best relearners Low cohesive, Intermediate High cohesive, - attitude, worst relearners Effects of Group Pressure. Productivity of one operator in a group with a production norm of 50 units per hour. Days Productivity Event 1-12 13-20 21-24 25-40 46-56 55-48 45-96 92 Joins group Pressure begins Group disbanded Working alone Overcame resistance by allowing workers to participate in change decisions Better performance Less turnover GROUP PERFORMANCE VS. INDIVIDUAL How does group compare to sum of individuals? Additive task (Kravitz and Martin, 1986) rope pull Number of people Predicted force of Actual force of pull pull 1 1 1 2 2 1.86 4 4 3.08 8 8 3.92 Social Loafing Identifiability reduces social loafing Assembly line: Performance only at level of worst performer Brainstorming (creative task) Group inhibits individual performance PROCESS LOSS Time spent in group maintenance Enforcing norms Building cohesiveness Solving interpersonal problems Lack of coordination Power struggles Distraction Conflicting goals- splitting of effort GROUP INTERVENTIONS How should we work with groups? to increase productivity to increase satisfaction to make work more meaningful Increase cohesiveness Encourage formation of work groups Allow socialization, on & off the job Assign group tasks Give group rewards Allow employees to select coworkers Make group and organizational goals compatible Group rewards Profit sharing Participation Team building Goal of building efficient work groups Series of exercises & experiences with a trainer AUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS (HACKMAN & OLDHAM, 1980, WORK REDESIGN) Self-managed work team makes entire product Work group has almost total authority Butler Example (Grain Dryer, over 3000 parts) Job rotation frequent & controlled by group By end of 18 months most employees know entire process Groups design, develop & purchase own tools Service calls throughout area (meet customers) No quality inspectors (done by group) Few foremen (forepersons) Groups participate in hiring & promotion Supervisors as coaches, counseling & training Many meetings: weekly team, monthly plant Participative: Employee advisory group Training in interpersonal skills Results Absence 1.2% (vs. 5% for factories in general) Turnover 11% (vs. 35% for factories in general) Profits higher than expected Note: Horsetrading answer is $20. Forget it is the same horse, but assume you buy two horses for $60 and $80, and you sell them for $70 and $90, respectively. The total profit is $10 or each transaction or $20. You spent $140 on horses and their sales returned $160. The fact it was the same horse doesn’t change that. Copyright Paul E. Spector, All rights reserved, July 22, 2002.