Organizational behaviour_Team Development
2 likes408 views
This document summarizes research on team development and its impact on organizational effectiveness. It discusses two well-known models of team development (Tuckman's five stage theory and the punctuated equilibrium model) and how researchers have expanded on these models. Researchers have found that team development is important for both individual and organizational goals. It allows individuals to fulfill needs and solve problems through collaboration. For organizations, team development fosters innovation and accomplishes complex tasks. However, researchers note that team development is influenced by other factors like perception, conflict, and biases.
Organizational behaviour_Team Development
- 1. Running head: TEAM DEVELOPMENT The Concept of Team Development and its impact on Organizational Effectiveness KANAV NARAYAN SAHGAL GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE HRM 4004: ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS DATE: 6th October, 2015
- 2. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 1 Abstract This paper encompasses research from a variety of textbooks, e-books and scholarly articles on the idea of team development, and uses this concept to explore and answer four questions on this topic. Because of their close relation with the team development concept, parallelisms with other organizational behaviour concepts such as motivation and perception can be found throughout the research paper as well. The two most well-known team development models (Tuckman‟s five stage theory and the punctuated equilibrium model) are discussed and critiqued in this paper as well, and their application is outlined with two best case practices within the Canadian context. Other team development models are also discussed, and suggestions for improvements in the existing models are highlighted as well. Overall, it can be seen that team development plays a major role in both achieving organizational development and individual goals, and its practical application is of critical importance in the study of organizational behaviour. Keywords: team development, team effectiveness, organizational behaviour
- 3. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 2 1. Why is this concept important in the workplace, and why did you select it? Before addressing the issue of why the concept of team development is critical to the success in any workplace, it‟s important to fully understand the concept of team development first, and then map out its impact on organizational effectiveness. In their work, Sniderman,Bulmash,Nelson and Quick (2010) underlined the difference between groups & teams; While groups may or may not work interdependently towards defined goals, teams definitely do. We also know that teams in any workplace go through a maturation process, such as people do in any life-cycle situation.(Sniderman et al., 2010). Hence, team development refers to the stages with which individuals in the team develop over time, while moving towards fulfilling their individual & team purpose. (Jones & Saks, 2001). A more advanced definition of team development (one that is beyond the scope of the textbook) will be discussed further on in this research paper. A concept such as this is important in a workplace because of many reasons. From an individual‟s perspective, team formation satisfies an individual‟s need for interaction & helps him/her unlock his/her potential for goal accomplishment (Jones & Saks,2001). This can also be linked to motivation theories such as the need for affiliation and the need to achieve self-esteem. It gives individuals an opportunity to test their perceptions of social reality, and at the same time reduces one‟s anxieties and feelings of powerlessness. Overall, it has been identified as an efficient problem solving mechanism for both personal & inter personal problems. (Kreitner,Kinicki,Cole and Digby,2010). From an organization‟s perspective, the process of team development helps generate new and innovative ideas and nurtures a “bottom-up innovative approach” wherein newcomers are given an opportunity to socialize and accomplish complex, interdependent tasks that otherwise would have been beyond the capabilities of an individual.(Kreitner et al.,2010). I selected this theory after I read about a survey conducted by Adrian Gostick & Chester Elton in 2009 on the existence of the following five elements in revolutionary teams across the United States & Canada (The 5 elements are: Goal Setting, Trust, Accountability, Communication & Recognition). This
- 4. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 3 research was culled from a 350,000 person database of Pennsylvania-based “Best Companies Group” (BCG) which establishes “The Best Places to Work” programs. Employees from twenty eight industries were studied in this research. Not surprisingly, in the companies that made the “Best Places to Work List”, 90 percent of employees felt that they already were a part of a team working towards a shared goal. Among those organizations that tried but failed to make the list, 80 percent of employees agreed that they had shared a team commitment to their goals, and the one‟s that didn‟t make the list, but were interviewed reported lower teamwork statistics.(Gostick & Elton, 2010). I was interested in this pattern between highly motivated teams and greater performance, and wanted to study it further, and that is why I selected this topic for the purpose of my individual research. Adding to that, this topic also leaves a lot of room for individual critique of the two well-known team development theories (Tuckman‟s five stage theory and the punctuated equilibrium model) making it a challenging choice. 2. How do practitioners and researchers define the concept beyond the definition provided by the textbook? Though the Textbook describes the two models of Team Development (Tuckman‟s Model and the punctuated equilibrium model) very clearly, it misses out on a few key concepts in both of the models. This section of the paper covers those deficiencies, and extends the concept of team development beyond the scope of what‟s provided in the textbook. Our textbook (Sniderman et al,2010) identified a series of individual issues that group members undergo at each stage of Tuckman‟s model, however, in their research, Kreiter,et al(2010) expanded the scope of their study and identified both individual and group issues that plagued the team at each stage of the five stages of team development. Thus, the first stage (forming) wasn‟t just centered on individual issues like “fitting in”, but now also included group issues such as “why are we here”. Similarly, the second stage (storming) now included individual issues centered on understanding their role within the team, and team issues centered on leadership and cohesiveness. Similar inter related issues were identified for the other stages as well. Thus, Kreiter et al‟s (2010) research expanded the definition of team
- 5. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 4 development from what was given in the textbook by adding more depth to what teams actually experienced at each stage of the process (as opposed to what just the individuals experienced). Russell Haines (2014) provides an interesting definition of team development from the perspective of virtual teams. In his research paper, entitled “Group development in virtual teams - An experimental reexamination”, he defines team development as a process that includes the creation of sub-structures used to accomplish team development tasks (e.g., determining that „„majority rules‟‟ when making team decisions or “agreeing to disagree” on certain discussions). According to his research, when groups first interact virtually, they rely on individual team member attributes to allocate roles. As they continue to interact, further development relies on attributes that are learned from previous observations of role performance (Goffman,1961). This definition includes the role of perception in the team development process, and his research paper also underlies how perceptual biases play a big role in affecting the development of virtual teams. It is interesting to note that this definition of team development can also be applied to face-to-face teams. More information on Haines (2014) research can be found in Appendix B. Wheelan, Davidson, & Tilin (2003) conducted their research on team development in 2003 and produced a new theory of team development that was modeled on Tuckman‟s five stage theory. They identified four stages of team development, namely the dependency and inclusion stage (first stage), the counterdependencey and fight stage (stage 2), the trust and structure stage (stage 3) and finally the work stage (stage 4).This model, although linear in a sense, takes the perspective that groups achieve maturity as they continue to work together rather than simply go through stages of activity. In this model “early” stages of group development were associated with specific issues such as those related to dependency, counter-dependency, and trust which precede the actual work conducted during the “more mature” stages of a group's life. Russell Haines‟(2014) research is modeled on this theory. It can be seen that these ideas throw a whole new light to the narrow concept that is team development, and they help define the concept by adding a broader dimension to it. One must remember
- 6. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 5 that team development isn‟t an isolated topic in the field of organizational behaviour, it is one that is affected by perception, conflict, leadership and of course biases (both attribution and perceptual). 3. What have researchers found about the concept in terms of antecedents (causes), consequences, and limitations (does it leave out something important)? Johns & Saks(2001) identified three main causes for team development. The first obvious prerequisite for team formation is the opportunity for interaction. He believes that it‟s only when people interact with each other that they realize they have a lot in common (or not). This explains research findings that have shown how “inside employees” develop stronger instances of comradery than “outside employees”. The second cause for team formation is the potential for goal accomplishment. Both physical organizational goals (such as creating a building) and intellectual organizational goods (such as designing the blue print of the same building) require teamwork, with careful division of labour. Teams may also achieve socio- economic goals, by fulfilling self-esteem and security needs during the goal achievement process. The third cause of team development has been identified as each team members‟ personal characteristic itself. There is no surprise that each one of our brains follows its own cognitive design (Sniderman et al, 2010) and these individual characteristics and attitudes affect team formation. Research shows that people with similar attitudes and goals tend to gravitate towards each other, but when we talk about personality, there is no correlation between similarity and cohesiveness. However, in a more formal setting, people are usually grouped together so that the entire team has individuals with complementary skill sets and not complimentary personalities. This might be poisonous, because if the team can‟t get to work together, it will ultimately lead to dysfunction, and the overall purpose of the team would be destroyed. (Lencioni, 2002). While discussing the consequences of the team development process, it‟s imperative to first understand that everything hinges to a degree on whether group members conform or do not conform to group norms (Haines, 2014). A team that matures with time has positive consequences on both the individual and the organization (Kreitner et al,2010).At an individual level, it enhances, develops and
- 7. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 6 confirms an individual‟s self-esteem and sense of identity. It also helps boost the individual team member‟s level of self-efficacy (Gostick & Elton, 2010). At an organizational level, a smooth team development process helps coordinate complex inter dependent tasks that are beyond the capabilities of individuals. This leads to the creation of new and innovative ideas that have the ability of contributing to organizational goals. Team development is also critical for organizational development, because organizations these days now understand the value of implementing team intervention and team development programs and use this knowledge to ensure their goals and targets are achieved. On the flipside, the lack of a structured team development process creates a negative impact on both the individual and the organization. Since teams are created with the objective of achieving a certain goals, the non-completion of the development cycle leads to the under achievement of those goals. This in turn creates issues such as reduced team morale, higher instances of social loafing (Kreitner et al., 2010), and issues surrounding trust and leadership (Langton & Robbins, 2007) According to Donald L. Anderson (2012) one of the key drawbacks of Tuckman‟s team development model, is the fact that all teams don‟t necessarily progress from one stage to the other. Some teams might find themselves “stuck” at one stage, or they may even revert back to a previous stage. For instance, if a team cannot resolve a team conflict (storming), team members may become guarded and exhibit characteristics of the previous stage (norming). In other cases, the team may drop out by directly moving into the last stage (adjourning). This model is thus, overly simplistic. Another limitation of the team development theory is the fact that it only underlines the process of team development, without factoring in a means to assess the effectiveness of the same at each stage of development. Schermerhorn,Hunt,Osborn & Currie (2005) address this issue by introducing the concept team maturity via a ten criteria checklist. Team maturity can be applied to both Tuckman‟s model and the Punctuated Equilibrium theory to assess the growth and development of the team at any stage before the adjourning stage. (See Appendix A for more information on Team Maturity). It has been observed that team maturity is highest at the performing stage and lowest at the storming phase.
- 8. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 7 Overall, the team development theories often provide only snapshots of groups at certain points of their history but do not fully describe the mechanisms of change (or the "triggers") that lead to change. The theories also don‟t factor in the amount of time that a group might remain in a stage. Furthermore, teams tend to be highly sensitive to outside influences and environmental contingencies, but very few models account for these influences. 4. How do practitioners apply this concept? Your answer should include best practices from at least one Canadian company. TRW Canada is currently one of Canada‟s most successful manufacturing plants, thanks to its reliance of self -directed teams to operate the company‟s twenty cells (manufacturing processes).Located at Tillsonborg, Ontario, this maker of automobile suspension components has teams that operate like small business units with a great deal of autonomy. Each team is responsible for scheduling a variety of tasks ranging from production, certifying skills & assigning daily jobs to hiring employees. Six coordinators are allocated to each team to oversee these tasks as well as normal production duties. It is interesting to note that although the coordinators play the role of supervisors, they don‟t actually follow the traditional command-and-control method of supervising their subordinates. Instead, they play the role of team mentors and operate as a link between the team and management. At the end of each year, a special plant wide team evaluates the six coordinators on each team, and rewards the team when all six coordinators pass the annual performance assessment (Mcshane, 2004).Applying Tuckman‟s model; TRW Canada‟s employees are at the stage of highest performance. Such a team would be deemed “effective” because it exhibits three vital characteristics, namely high task performance, high member satisfaction and high team viability (Schermerhorn et al 2005). Applying the punctuated equilibrium model, TRW Canada is at phase 2, which is characterized by high bursts of activity and a “let‟s get going” attitude. Ultimately, TRW Canada‟s efforts paid off. Over the course of time, their sales per employee increased by 179 percent and inventory costs went down by nearly 50 percent. Soon enough,
- 9. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 8 Industry Week Magazine recognized TRW Canada as one of North America‟s best manufacturing plans- the only Canadian plan to receive this distinction. (Mcshane,2004). Another exciting best practice comes from Montreal-based aerospace and transportation company Bombardier Inc. When American based company, Outboard Marine Corp.‟s (OMC) market share plummeted from 55 percent to 22 percent (from 1995 to 2000), Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. bought over the company. The Manufacturing executive at that time (Roch Lambert) led the turnaround team and completely redesigned the manufacturing process with the help of high performing teams. He selected 300 people from over 6,000 applicants and focused on people with “team skills” and “problem solving skills” over people with past experience in engine assembly. Eventually, Bombardier‟s team-based approach paid off because the company managed to regain many of its old clients, and it was no longer losing money (Mcshane 2004). Just like with the teams of TRW Canada, the teams in this company also demonstrated high instances of cohesiveness. Applying both Tuckman‟s theory and the punctuated equilibrium theory, we see that Bombardier is at the performing stage, and on phase 2of development respectively. It is interesting to note that the punctuated equilibrium model is characterized by deadline oriented teams that are triggered by members‟ awareness of time and deadlines (Langton & Robbins, 2007).Since Bombardier Inc. exhibited a “slack phase” before the take-over, and exhibited a massive burst in performance after the take-over, it makes this a fantastic best case practice of the punctuated equilibrium theory. TRW Canada on the other hand is best a best case practice of Tuckman‟s theory, because the teams within that company underwent a liner progression from the forming phase all the way till the performing phase.
- 10. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 9 References Anderson,D.L.(2012). Team Interventions. Organizational Development: The process of leading organizational change (2nd edition).Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Goffman, E. (1961). Fun in Games. Encounters (pp. 15–81). Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill Gostick,A.,Elton,C.(2010). The Orange Revolution: How One Great Team Can Transform and Entire Organization. New York, NY: Free Press Haines,R (2014). Group development in virtual teams: An experimental reexamination. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 39, p213, 10 p. doi : 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.019 Johns,G. & Saks,A.M.(2001). Groups and Teamwork. Organizational Behaviour : Understanding And Managing Life At Work (5th ed.). Toronto,Ontario: Pearson Education Canada Inc. Kreitner, R.,Digby,V., Cole,N &Digby,V.(2010). Fundamental Concepts of Group Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour: Key Concepts, Skills and Best Practices (3rd Canadian. edition.).Toronto, Ontario:Mcgraw-Hill Ryerson Langton,N.,Robbins,S.P.(2007). Groups and Teamwork. Organizational behaviour: Concepts, Controversies, Applications (4th Canadian Edition).Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada Inc. Lencioni,P.(2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco,CA: Jossey- Bass McShane,S.L.(2004).Team Processes.Canadian Organizational Behaviour (5th Edition).Canada: Mcgraw- Hill Ryerson
- 11. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 10 Schermerhorn, J.R.,Hunt,J.G.,Osborn,R.N.,Currie,E.(2005).Foundations of Group Effectiveness. Organizational Behaviour Canadian Edition.Mississauga,Ontario: John Wiley & Sons Canada,Ltd. Sniderman, P.R, Bulmash,J.,Nelson,D.L & Quick,J.C.(2010). Team Dynamics and Effectiveness. Managing Organizational Behaviour in Canada (2nd ed),Toronto,ON: Nelson Education Limited Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Wheelan, S., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion? Small Group Research, 34 (2), 223-245. Retrieved from http://www.teleosleaders.com/assets/pdf/Group_Development_Across_Time.pdf
- 12. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 11 Appendix A Shermerhorn et al. (2005) identified the following ten point assessment criteria to track the progress of a team‟s maturity during the team development process. This assessment should ideally be taken before the adjourning stage, and after the norming stage. Refer to table A1 for the team maturity table. Table A 1 Immature Group Mature Group 1. Feedback mechanisms Poor Excellent 2. Decision making methods Dysfunctional Functional 3. Cohesion Low High 4. Operating procedures Inflexible Flexible 5. Use of member resources Poor Excellent 6. Communications Unclear Clear 7. Goals Not accepted Accepted 8. Authority relations Independent Inter dependent 9. Participation in leadership Low High 10. Acceptance of minority views Low High
- 13. TEAM DEVELOPMENT 12 Appendix B Russell Haine‟s (2014) research on team development in virtual teams adds a new dimension to the traditional models. According to his research, virtual team development appears to differ from face-to- face teams because the use of computer-mediated communication heightens pressure to conform when a virtual team is first formed. This implies that trust is one of the most crucial factors in a virtual team‟s success, as far as cohesion is concerned. According to his research, the earliest stage of group development, dependency and inclusion, is characterized by member anxiety (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994). At this stage, the situation is perceived as new to the members and not clearly defined. Group members at this stage might be unsure of whether the group is safe, whether they belong to the group and are accepted, and what the rules of conduct and procedures will be. During the second stage, counterdependency and fight, the group‟s members attempt to balance the amount of influence and responsibility possessed by individual members (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994).The third stage, trust and structure, is characterized as consisting of a more mature negotiation about goals and procedures (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994). At this stage, groups begin to design the structure of their projects and initiate the planning of their goals and objective(s) by laying the groundwork for productive and trusting relationships with each other. The fourth stage, the work stage is a time of intense productivity and effectiveness (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994). This stage is characterized by effective use available resources such as information, expertise, and materials by the team. Finally, when groups have a distinct ending point, they may have the fifth stage, termination, in which members assess the performance of the group and disband.