The applied significance of teambuilding - Research Paper Example

?Running head: TEAMBUILDING Teambuilding Introduction The new century has offered a myriad of challenges to managers from all over the world. The impact of globalization and the technological advances that have basically shaped the way businesses are conducted are very real and pressing concerns for business today. Moreover, these developments have paved the way for the emergence of a new breed of workers. These people have been able to almost literally transcend time and space since they are basically prized for their intellectual capabilities and special technical skills. These people are known as knowledge workers (Serrat, 2008). It is very important that managers recognize the existence of these knowledge workers and be able to utilize them to their full potential. Moreover, with the many challenges hounding companies today, teams have been very much relied upon in order to be able to get thru difficult challenges as well as to succeed in many endeavours. However, it is very important for the teams to be composed properly and be able to choose the members well. Furthermore, it is important to have a clear definition and be able to set the expectations of team members as well. Hence, it is very crucial also to be able to set the roles of each team members so that they may work harmoniously towards the achievements of the predetermined goals and objectives (Cornelius Associates, 2004). Clearly, these are people that are central to the team building process. Thus, as the functional area primarily concerned with manpower, the human resources department must play a central role in the team building efforts of companies. This will ensure the proper implementation of necessary guidelines so that the team building process will be successful. Hence, Hackman (1993) has put forward excellent examples in order to get these things done whereby the flight trainings that involve flight crews have different functions interdependent in order to bring the group’s goal into fruition. Timing events and the various developments are also necessary. In building teams, it is also important for the members to have a clear understanding when to step up and take the helm for the group. It is important for the different members to take turns at the spotlight and indeed the team members must be ready when the time comes for them to be the one to move forward for the sake of the team (Gersick, 1988). Teambuilding There have been many challenges affecting businesses today among which are the pressing forces of globalization and technological innovations that have enabled companies to utilize various automation processes in place of manual labor. However, despite the many changes that has strongly shaped and continuously form the business landscape, manpower has continuously been the force that companies have continuously relied upon. Though there are automation options, certain processes still require human touch in order to be able to get things done. Consequently, these automation processes usually lessens the labor employed but these machines still require human elements to make them function. Thus, manpower continues to be a key enabler for companies to go about their businesses and be able to bring about the realization of their strategies and to bring into fruition the target successes that are being talked about in the boardrooms. Hence, there is the all too important learning and growth perspective in the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). The BSC has four perspectives namely the financial perspective, customer perspective, internal business process perspective and the aforementioned learning and growth perspective. In its most basic sense, the strategic activities illustrated in the BSC seem to have its roots from the learning and growth perspective. Of course there are variations to the model but still, the learning and growth illustrates the need to capture the all too important elements of a company’s manpower which continues to be a crucial enabler in the success of a company’s strategy (Kaplan and Norton, 2005). Hence, this only goes to show that the basic production elements have not changed despite the changing times. Although the weight varies greatly from industries, the manpower component remains a very important driver for business success. Indeed times have changed but the managerial functions have basically remained the same (Carroll and Gillen , 1980). However, despite the many changes and developments, automation has been more possible and has provided more accurate but usually less costly method to produce. Still, machines can never take the place of human beings. Companies may strongly innovate their processes through technological advances but their employees continue to be the key enablers for these production capability improvements to work properly and conform to their business strategies. These are companies that usually have an army of employees working day in and day out to produce for the business. However, these employees must be able to function as a unit in order to contribute to the betterment of the company. Thus, the learning and growth perspective tries to loop in this all too important production ingredient in order to ensure that the company has enough competence to put these process innovations into practice (Wongrassamee, Gardiner and Simmons, 2001). Thus, this only highlights the continuous need for company to ensure that their manpower is working cohesively towards the achievement of their goals and objectives. Thus, since the production line was introduced by Henry Ford, the need for the employees to work together and basically function as a unit has been critical for a company’s success. Consequently, teamwork has continued to be very important to achieve these goals. And, more importantly, ensuring that this teamwork remains strong has been one of the most important tasks of managers (Cliffnotes.com, 2011). In fact teamwork is very important for a lot of successes in and out of the business world. In team sports, being able to work cohesively has been a very important factor for many teams to win even if they may have a weaker line up. Many soldiers must be able to function as one unit in order for armies to win wars. Even the best doctor will not perform an operation on his own barring any emergency situation which prevents a team from being mustered. In fact, managerial competencies has strongly impacted even the All of these practically scream about the pressing need for teamwork. Hence, it is then very important for managers to build on their employees and make them function as one team, as one unit with the goals and objectives assigned to them at their crosshairs. As mentioned, the companies of today do not merely operate in their local areas. Most of the successful companies operate internationally. Moreover, the multinational companies are increasingly finding not just markets but even cost efficient production capabilities from venturing away from their homelands. Also, for those companies that are not expanding overseas, they are usually faced with stiff competition from foreign competitors. Thus, in today’s highly advanced and basically more tightly knit global business environment, managers must increasingly find ways to make their companies more capable to face up to different competition as well as to be able to withstand the pressure of operating and serving the global marketplace. And, as mentioned, the company’s labor force continues to play in strongly in these efforts. Hence, companies therefore must be able to have managers that can handle the different cultural backgrounds that they will be facing not just in their marketing efforts but in production efforts as well (Khatri and Ong, 1999). Employees have always been very important for companies to achieve their various goals and objectives. The money and the technology may be there but still the employees are the ones that enable the companies to make, basically, all the other resources work. However, all the employees in the world may not matter much if they cannot function as a unit. The diverse global workforce that multinational companies rely on must be able to function as a team. Central to this endeavour is the team building capability of the company in order to smooth out various issues that may be innate in the various cultures that companies usually work with. In fact, the functional areas of a company must be able to sync with each other so that the company can move smoothly forward and this requires a great degree of teamwork. This then trickles down to the various responsibility centers within these functional areas. Teamwork is very important for the realization of many endeavours and Kazenbach and Smith (1993) strongly advocates the strong interdependency of teams and discipline. It is no wonder then that the various companies do get out of their way and even spend money in order to facilitate various team building activities such as company outings, social gatherings like Christmas parties and even fund foods for departmental meetings. Hence, managers must also be able to determine the proper utilization of these groups of individuals. Moreover, it is important to note that not all groups of individuals can be called teams since some are just the way they are, work groups. Teams share in the leadership whereas groups have clear focus on their leadership. Also, teams share accountabilities and are usually formed for a specific purpose. More importantly, the working groups stops after the discussions and then delegate the work while the teams go beyond the drawing board to actually implement what has been planned by working together. Thus, it is important for these teams to communicate effectively and bring into line the most important initiatives while drawing up both short and long term plans. Ultimately, the team becomes more effective because of the shared accountability that they have for their plans and actions which make them deliver (HBR, 2005). However, a key to success not only lies in the plans and formation of the teams but also on the ways that the manager can measure the performance of his or her teams. Therefore, it is very important that strategic goals are highlighted upon so that the team’s efforts can have focus and thus, their performance can be gauged upon more efficiently (Meyer, 1994). Moreover, another key component of handling teams is the handling of conflict. Eisenhardt, Kahwajy and Bourgeois (1997) recogniozes this important need. It is therefore necessary for managers to act as arbiters whenever these conflicts arise in teams. However, just as they must refrain from thinking that they know what is best for the teams, managers must also realize that these conflicts will come naturally and that most of these are actually good for the team. These conflicts are actually very important since these give teams opportunities to challenge decisions in order to be able to recalibrate their strategies as well as their action plans in order to arrive at better performances. Communication is also key to the success of teams and the composition of the team can actually determine how external communications are accepted. Hence, in building teams, it is important to find out if the team can handle such a situation whereby the unavoidable external communications will affect the team either positively or negatively. It is important to note that the autonomy of teams play in critically in the teams capacity to positively accept external communications since the teams that have more autonomy usually have more flexibility and are therefore more amenable to external communication. So goes for team loads, whereby those that are burdened can find external communications more cumbersome (Haas, 2001). However, as mentioned, companies nowadays are more exposed to cultural differences due to their international presence. Hence, it is also important for the team building efforts to factor in these differences in order to ensure harmonious relationships in teams that have members that come from different cultural backgrounds. Hinds et al (2002) relates that the race factor continually play prominently in teams as people tend to want to work together with people coming from their same race. Of course in the today’s highly technical environment, the impact of technology has increasingly affected team performances. Although it is true that the technological advances in communications have helped members communicate more efficiently, teams are somehow losing the personal touch as more and more communications are done virtually. This is very important since the communication process greatly impacts the decision making capabilities of teams (Hollingshead, 1998). Still, it is important to note that not all teams perform as expected. Hence, for Hackman (1990), it is basically the end result that matters. Thus, those teams that are more functional as a unit when their task has been brought to a conclusion are the ones considered more effective. This basically stems from what Hackman and Morris calls the process criteria of effectiveness. Hence, teams must be able to jointly function showing the effort of group members that are funnelled together for the completion of the task along with the strategies that the team utilizes. This shows a considerable degree of unity for the group and determines the cohesion of the team. More importantly, each team members must be able to bring in his or her own expertise and share it with the whole team to combine a potent mixture of talent and knowledge that would have otherwise been inadequate in a solo attempt at solving the problem at hand. As mentioned, there has to be adequate control for the team. However, there is a caveat since the level of adequacy must strike a balance between having a loose cannon or a stifling collar. Too loose could lead to waste of time and resources as teams dillydally at their own pace and method while stricter control could stifle the creativity that the team is probably brimming with (Lefton and Buzzotta, 2005). These talents and expertise must be able to be tempered so that they work well with each other and not compete against each other. Therefore, Pearce and Gregersen (1991) have highlighted the interdependence needed by each team members with each other so that there can be one fluid motion for the fast and effective achievement of the predetermined goals and objectives. Moreover, there has to be a strong interdependence of the tasks assigned to each team members. Clearly, there has to be efficient control mechanisms in order to make these interdependencies work. As stressed by Kaplan and Norton (2005), the linkages between the key enablers of the company are necessary to ensure that the strategies are cascaded down properly, acted upon and brought into fruition by the different functional areas. Also, it is clear that in the learning and growth perspective, the need to improve the company’s manpower and be able to prepare them for the rudiments of implementing strategic reforms are critical to the success of the company’s strategies. Clearly, this is a team effort and the company must have the right persons in place and must be able to form the right teams to reach their goals and objectives. Hence, teambuilding has always been a crucial enabler for the success of companies worldwide. Conclusion The business environment of today has been very challenging brought about by the forces of globalization and the intricacies of technological innovation. However, though many things have changed and different automation technologies have provided a shift in the manpower requirements of firms, the human element remains an important component for the success of different companies. Within these realms lie the necessary developments of teams. Hence, team building has been a very important element for the effective utilization of firms’ strategies in order for them to reach their goals and objectives. Clearly, the elements of control and interdependence are crucial for the success of creating teams. The basic fact that teams are a confluence of different talents, expertise and capabilities; these must be controlled so that these can be properly utilized for the realization of the plans drawn inside corporate boardrooms. Van der Vegt, Emans and Van de Vliert (2000) have cautioned against the failure to harness these talents which can be detrimental for the team’s success. To do these, leaders must be able to ensure that they maintain a certain degree of control in order for the team to be able to be cohesive and functional. Therefore it is important that the team that is built are truly formed as teams with the proper understanding and commitment which goes to show that these are indeed teams in the strictest sense of the word and not just a namesake. This commitment must be harnessed by a specific direction as well as the proper layout of the members’ structures. Furthermore, the team can only function if it is well organized but that there must be teams that the team must be accorded proper coaching as well (Wageman 2001). Clearly, teambuilding has been an effective component in order to bring forward the success of teams. It is clear and understandable why firms spend money on team building activities. These are very important components since the teams can only be able to function if the myriad of talents and expertise brought in by different team members are effectively combined since teams are essentially formed for the achievement of specific goals and objectives. The emergence of knowledge workers as well as the exposure of different companies to different cultures has been a real and pressing concern for different companies to take their team building activities to higher levels (Serrat, 2008; Khatri and Ong 1999). Thus, it is important to have a clear notion of the functions and roles that each team member must play so that there will be cooperation and not competition between the members (Cornelius Associates, 2004). It is hard enough to manage different people; it is harder to bring these different talents and personalities to work with each other. Finally, the interdependence of the different members as well as their respective roles factor in prominently for the success of the team which necessitates proper guidance bringing in the need for effective coaching so that the individual capabilities can be mustered towards the achievement of the goal that has been set for the team to achieve. Although coaching can only do so much meaning it cannot work up a miracle to rectify an erroneous team design, it can somehow help salvage the team through the improvement of its members (Wagner and Mannix 2005). Teams are indeed important enablers for the success of a company. However, to achieve this purpose, team building efforts are invested upon to ensure that teams are composed of able members that are capable of bringing their individual capabilities to bring into fruition the plans and objectives that has necessitated the formation of the team in the first place. References Anderson, P., and Pulich, M. (2002). Managerial competencies necessary in today's dynamic health care environment. Health Care Manager 21(2), 1–11. Carroll, S.J. and Gillen, D.J. (1980). Are the classical management functions useful in describing managerial work. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 38–51. CliffsNotes.com. (2011) Functions of managers. Retreived on September 22, 2011 from Cornelius Associates (2004). Team roles analysis: Self-assessment form for team building. Retreived on September 22, 2011 from http://www.corneliusassociates.com Eisenhardt, K.M., Kahwajy, J.L. and Bourgeois, L.J. (1997). How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business School. Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41. Haas, M. R. (2001). Acting on what others know: Distributed knowledge and team performance. Working Paper. Cambridge: Harvard University. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hackman, J. R. (1993). Teams, leaders, and organizations: New directions for crew-oriented flight training. In E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 47-69). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 45-99). New York: Academic Press. HBR (2005). Building a high performance team. Harvard Business School. Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2):226-251. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Distributed knowledge and transactive processes in decision-making groups. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1, 103-123. Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2005). Balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Press. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993). The discipline of theme. Best of HBR, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Khatri, N. & Ong, P.N. 1999. Managing human resources in a global era. Management Research News, 23, 81-82. Lefton, R.E., & Buzzotta, V. R. (2005). The team scorecard. Retreived on September 22, 2011 from http://www.communicare.com . Meyer, C. (1994). How the right measures help teams excel. Harvard Business School. Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extra role behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838-844. Serrat, O. (2008). Managing knowledge workers. Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank. Van Der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J., & Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Affective responses to intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26, 633-655. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559-577. Wageman, R., & Mannix, E.A. (2005). The uses and misuses of individual power in teams: Evidence from the field. Manuscript under editorial review. Wongrassamee, S., Gardiner, P.D. and Simmons, J.E.L. (2001). Performance measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and business excellence model. Heriot-Watt University. Read More