Enhancing Teamwork At Communico Company - Essay Example

?ENHANCING TEAMWORK AT COMMUNICO COMPANY By: Introduction According to Irving (2004, p. 111) organizational leadership assessment is a strategic tool for enhancing the effectiveness of teams in organization. Smith, Montagno and Kuzmenko (2004, p. 88) argue that team effectiveness is a critical aspect for ensuring the profitability of an organization. As a graduate trainee employed by ‘CommuniCo’ a large UK-based mobile phone manufacturing company, I have come up with this advice paper to recommend the planning of an initiative to improve teamwork amongst managers and shop-floor workers. The argument in the paper will be based on comparison of Larson and LaFasto’s team leadership model and Katzenbach and Smith’s effective team working model. Cohen and Bailey (1997, p.241) describe that there are different definitions of a team within the context of an organization. Cohen and Bailey (1997, p.241) explain that a team is a collection of interdependent individuals in their tasks, share duties for outcomes, they see themselves and are viewed by others as an integral social unit embedded in another larger social system and manage their interaction within the organizational boundaries. According to Cohen and Bailey (1997, p.241) although different authors use the word team and group interchangeably; she asserts that groups vary in their degree of ‘groupness’ with some groups being more integrated and interdependent than others. Katzenbach and Smith (2003, p. 19) observes that they used the term; team to refer to groups that develop high degree of ‘’groupness’’. On the other hand, given that most previous authors had focused their studies on ineffective teams, Larson and LaFasto (1998) directed their energies on exploring different aspects of effective leadership as noted by Irving and Longbotham (2007, p. 104). Consequently, given the diverse approach that the two different case studies used in evaluating team leadership models, I have chosen to base my analysis on the models they developed on effective team leadership. Katzenbach and Smith’s work is particularly important in that the two went further and defined a team as individuals who show high level of integration. The two case studies in-turn came up with high standards for a team in their generic model of effective team working. I therefore wish to benchmark teamwork initiative at CommuniCo with a hybrid of the two models to guarantee the success of our organization. According to Cohen and Bailey (1997, p.241) there are four different types of teams in an organization which include; work teams, management teams, parallel teams and project teams. Cohen and Bailey (1997, p. 242) explains that effectiveness in an organization include diverse outcomes that are important in an organization. The levels of evaluating effectiveness can be analyzed from an individual, business unit, group or organizational level. The effectiveness is categorized into three dimensions depending on its impact on the team. These include performance effectiveness which is assessed in terms of quality and quantity of the output, behavioral outcomes and members’ attitudes. The argument on this paper will base on the writing of various authors who have analyzed the works of Larson and LaFasto and that of Katzenbach and Smith. Planning a Teamwork Initiative for the Company Team buildings is a critical aspect in any organization be it a school, nonprofit organization, a firm or a religious group and are implemented with an intention of improving the performance of a team (Lencioni, 2002, p.10-12 and Naquin and Tynan, 2003, p. 332). Team building may involve use of various practices that are used to bring together a specific group within an organization or initiatives aimed at bringing the all the members of an organization with an effort to improve the performance. CommuniCo Company has proposed to implement an initiative to improve teamwork across the company. Burgoynem (2001, p.35) notes that team building is important in an organization as it helps to improve relationship and communication within an organization, makes the work environment more enjoyable and motivates the team. Moreover, Webber (2002, p. 2005) explains that team building is critical in getting all the members work towards a certain goal and also helps in recognizing and utilizing the strengths of others in the team. Team building is also important in enhancing the productivity of the team and identifying and developing leadership skills. There are various activities that can be employed in team building activities. Team building exercises are aimed helping the team become a more cohesive unit that can work effectively as a group (Kirkman, Gibson and Shapiro, 2001, p. 12). Team building exercises may be categorized as communication exercises, problem solving tasks, trust building activities and activities aimed at enhancing planning and adaptability. Communication exercises in team building are aimed at improving communication among the members. Kirkman, Gibson and (Shapiro, 2001, p. 12) explain that problem solving exercises are geared towards to bring the groups together to solve complex problems and make difficult decisions. Adaptability or planning activities focus on making the team adaptable to change and trains then on aspects of planning while trust exercises are aimed at engaging the team in a way that will stimulate trust amongst themselves. Despite the great potential that team building holds for our organization, it is critical to remember that the success of team building initiative is influenced by the team leadership model adapted. Katzenbach and Smith (2003, p. 19) explain that Katzenbach and Smith (1993) defined a team as small number of individuals with complementary skills and committed to common purpose, performance goals and a specific approach of holding themselves mutually accountable. Larson and LaFasto on the other hand defined teamwork as people with varying views and perspectives who come together, put aside their self interests and discussing issues openly and in support of each other with an aim of solving a bigger problem or achieve a broader goal. LaFasto and Larson (2001) observe that teams fail due to a strained relationship. According to Northouse (2007), Katzenbach and Smith definition of a team argued that the team salient aspects of a team is small numbers, complementary skills, common purpose, common performance goals, similar approaches and mutual accountability. On the contrary, Larson and LaFasto the most important aspects of a team is openness and supportiveness. Although the two definitions vary in terms of the number that composes a team, the two concur that the members of a team must support each other. The issue of openness proposed by Larson and LaFasto is also amplified the proposal of Katzenbach and Smith of mutual accountability. Openness as described by Larson and LaFasto refers to the willingness of members of a team to communicate while supportiveness implies a deliberate attempt to treat others positively. Larson and LaFasto concur with Katzenbach and Smith’s argument that in a team, good relationship must be inculcated and is characterized by mutual understanding as observed by Russell and Stone (2002, p.147). To implement a team building initiative at CommuniCo, we need to be alive to the fact that a team is not limited by the number as had been argued by Katzenbach and Smith. It is therefore critical to understand that a team can be made of any number of people but they must all be geared towards a specific goal. According to Northouse (2007) De Meuse (2009, p 10), Larson and LaFasto argued that a team must have a good relationship which he went further and argued that it is characterized by being productive for all people, is productive and is based on mutual understanding and self correction. Katzenbach and Smith observed that members of a team must be committed to being mutually accountable to the team. In Katzenbach and Smith explains that the optimal number of people being 5 to 9 as these are more manageable and the two argued that when the number exceeds 9, communication changes and becomes more centralized. However, Larson and LaFasto argue that the number should not be a limiting factor in team building and it is only when there is poor management that leads to dysfunctional behavior such as indirect communication through emails and memos. In poorly managed organization, people also avoid each other, and the communication is superficial. This happens when the aspirations of an individual compromise the ability of the team to identify, discuss and decide on the important issues that should move the agenda of the team forward. Simons and Randall (2000, p.112) explain that Larson and LaFasto came up with the connect model which has been used to build effective team relationships. The connect model (Simons and Randall, 2000, p.112) recognize that the process of team building is based on an understanding that in a team, people do things with someone and not for someone. Hogg and Vaughan (2005, p. 123) observes that the process model works best when both parties are aware of the process. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) dwelt on the basics of the team as observed by (Katzenbach and Smith, 2003, p. 19). The two argued that most individuals recognize the capabilities of a team; however there is a natural resistance towards going beyond personal responsibilities, roles and accountabilities. De Meuse (2009, p 11) observes that Katzenbach and Smith noted that individuals rarely accept the responsibility of others’ performance. According to De Meuse (2009, p. 10), Katzenbach and Smith concluded that successful teams are deeply inclined towards achieving their goals, purpose and approach. The two argued that teams are understood that the wisdom of teams is rooted on the focus for collective work-products, performances results and personal growth. Katzenbach and Smith explain that successful teams result from pursuing great performance goals. To evaluate whether a team is effective and improve their effectiveness, Katzenbach and Smith proposed six questions. De Meuse (2009, p. 10) outlines the questions as; is the size of the team appropriate, do members have adequate complementary skills, are there team oriented goals and are they6 clear, realistic and measurable. In addition, the team should interrogate itself to evaluate whether there is a sense of mutual accountability and does the team have a pre-conceived, expressed working approach. The Katzenbach and Smith concluded with an observation that when the six questions are addressed satisfactorily, the team is effective. According to Edmondson, Roberto and Watkins (2003, p. 297), Larson and LaFasto described the steps of the connect model as including; commitment to the relationship, optimization of safety and narrowing down to a single issue. In addition the connect model calls for neutralization of the defensive, offering explanation and a change of one’s behavior. The last step is usually tracking the team. The two models interrelate on the aspect of commitment to a pre-conceived goal. The goal must be communicated to the team as advocated by the two models and therefore all the members of the team must be aware of the mission of the team. Larson and LaFasto explained that the relationship with a team may be strained when one person brings the other person to the defensive. To avoid this, the team must optimize safety where all members must do their best to make others feel lower because of how one handle a conversation. As such, Larson and LaFasto advocate for a move from the servant master relationships (Winston, 2004, p. 617). Furthermore, Edmondson, Roberto and Watkins (2003, p. 297) assert that Larson and LaFasto insist that the leader of a team must narrow down to one issue and using various techniques discuss it within the team to build trust and respect for each other. In teambuilding, Larson and LaFasto asserted that it is important to explain and echo. Explaining involves giving a personal opinion on how you view things while echo implies offering an explanation on what others said. The aspect of tracking outlined in the connect model calls for coming up with modalities to monitor the progress of the team. In 2003, Larson and LaFasto developed a new model of teamwork and collaboration which is referred to as the Five Dynamics of Teamwork and Collaboration Model (De Meuse, 2009, p. 15) the model for team effectiveness was developed following an investigation of 600 teams in various industries. They in turn argued that there are five fundamental components in team work which must be understood and managed actively to increase the chances of team effectiveness. The model described by Larson and LaFasto (2001) include; team member, team relationships, team problem solving, team leadership and the organization environment. According to De Meuse (2009, p. 15), the model is based on the aspects openness, supportiveness, proactive members and positive personal style. From the works of Larson and LaFasto and Katzenbach and Smith, CommuniCo can borrow a lot when implementing an initiative of team building companywide. As explained from the onset of this paper, I propose the adoption of a hybrid of the two models to ensure the effectiveness team working at CommuniCo. It is critical to understand that the assumption by Katzenbach and Smith that a team should be composed of a small number is misleading in this case. The effectiveness of a team is influenced by the way it is implemented and not the number of people involved. As noted from the connect model, the servant master relationship leads to strained teamwork in an organization and therefore we must do away with that notion. The floor workers should work collaboratively with the managers. It is important that managers strive to ensure safety as recommended in the connect model by avoiding putting the floor workers at a defensive. To enhance team work there should be creation of trust among all members. To enhance teamwork at CommuniCo Company, the team should be developed where members have diverse skills. Therefore a team should consist of managers, people from the technical department and the floor workers. Having a team with diverse skills has been advocated by Katzenbach and Smith as this helps to provide synergy when different ideas and skills are combined. The diversity is important in increasing the creative of problem solving. The initiative adopted in enhancing teamwork must adopt a common approach. This is where the members of the team resolve to work together. The team as proposed by Katzenbach and Smith should come up with their own rules that summarize the behaviours expected from the members. The initiative also needs to specify a way of monitoring the progress in teamwork. This is informed by the two observations from the two works that team building is a process which is undertaken in steps. It is critical that the initiative is guided by a sense of mutual accountability (Bolden, Gosling, Marturano and Dennison, 2003, p.12). This is emphasized by Katzenbach and Smith while Larson and LaFasto assert that openness is a key aspect of enhancing a team. Therefore, to create trust among the team members, it is important that the management explain the process to the team and the expectations in the process. The top management must change their attitude towards the floor workers and engage them in more decision making. I recommend that the management should evaluate the six questions outlined by Katzenbach and Smith in evaluating whether the team is effective. The six questions must be addressed satisfactorily to ensure the success of the team. It is important to understand whether the size of the team currently adopted at CommuniCo is impeding the effectiveness of the team. I recommend to have leaner teams charged with various responsibilities will help to ensure that the teams can be adequately managed and that communication among the team members is enhanced (Gibson and Vermeulen, 2003, p. 210). Consequently, the management may come up with different teams some charge with the responsibility of research and development, projects team and marketing. These groups may be exposed to undertake various tasks that help in bonding such as participation in games and mountain hiking. These exercises will help build a cohesive team that will work together and also stimulate the thinking members of the team. Larson and LaFasto model noted that problematic relationship is one of the common reasons that lead to the failure of teams. As such I propose that the management should strive to encourage development of good relationships by promoting openness and supportiveness. The management should allow for shelf correction as observed by Larson and LaFasto. Openness will be cultivated in the team when everyone is allowed to speak out their mind before coming to any particular decision. Conclusion In conclusion, the goals of team work is not only in ensuring the success of the organization but also is geared towards ensuring personal growth. Implementation of an effective team is a complex task that calls for the evaluation of the various effective team leadership models. Examples of these models are the Larson and LaFasto connect model and Katzenbach and Smith team basics model. These models have salient aspects that determine the effectiveness of a team. Larson and LaFasto model is based on seven steps that start with commitment to the team, optimizing safety and narrowing to a single issue. The other steps that follow are those of neutralizing defensiveness, explain and echo, change one’s behaviour and then monitor the team. This model is effective for a team that understands the process but this could be achieved by explaining it to the members of the organization. On the other hand, Katzenbach and Smith proposed a model that is based on the basics of defining a team. They assert that an effective team should be small in number that is a team should not be composed of more than ten members. They further argue that members of a team should have complementary skills, common purpose and performance goals. In addition, members of the team must have a common approach and should be mutually accountable. According to Larson and LaFasto, members of the team must always remember that they are working with someone and not for someone and therefore there should be collaboration within a team. In enhancing team working at CommuniCo, I recommend the implementation of a hybrid of both models. While as Larson and LaFasto emphasize on the importance of connect model and outlines the steps that could be adopted to achieve effectiveness within a team, Katzenbach and Smith’s work observe that the basis for achieving teamwork is through implementing the basics of a team. Consequently, I recommend a team that has complementary skills and is lean in size. Moreover, I recommend a change of behaviour to allow for shelf correction and all members within the organization must be involved in the making of decisions. I also recommend that the small teams hold team bonding sessions outside the organization as sub groups and also as an organization. Larson and LaFasto will deal with the shortcoming of Katzenbach and Smith model that fails to address the issue of monitoring team building initiatives. References Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A and Dennison, P 2003, A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies University of Exeter. pp 1-44. Cohen, G and Bailey 1997, “What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite.” Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3 pp: 239-290 De Meuse, K 2009, ‘Driving Team Effectiveness: A Coparative Analysis of Korn/Ferry T7 Model with other popular Team Models’. The Korn/Ferry Institute. pp 1-16. Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M and Watkins, M 2003, ‘A Dynamic Model of Top Management Team Effectiveness: Managing Unstructured Task Streams’. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), pp. 297-326. Gibson, C and Vermeulen, F 2003, ‘A Healthy Divide: Subgroups as a Stimulus For Team Learning Behavior’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 202-239. Hackman, J. R. 2002, ‘Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances’. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hogg, M. A., Vaughan, G. M 2005, ‘Social psychology’, 4th Edition, Pearson/Prentice Hall. Irving, J. A. 2004, ‘Utilizing the Organizational Leadership Assessment as a strategic Tool for increasing the effectiveness of teams within Organizations’. Journal of Management and Marketing Research: pp 111-123 Irving, J. A., and Longbotham, G 2007, ‘Team Effectiveness and Six Essential Servant Leadership Themes: A Regression Model Based on items in the Organizational Leadership Aseessment’. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 2, pp. 98-113 James, K. and Burgoyne, J. (2001). Leadership Development: Best practice guide for organisations. London: Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership. Katzenbach, J. R., Smith, D. K 2003, ‘The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization’. New York, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. B., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001, “Exporting” teams: Enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of work teams in global affiliates’’. Organizational Dynamics, 30(1), 12-39. LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. 2001, ‘When Teams Work Best: 6,000 Team Members and Leaders Tell What It Takes to Succeed’. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lencioni, P 2002, ‘The five dysfuctions of a team: A leadership table. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Naquin, C. E., & Tynan, R 2003, The team halo effect: Why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 332-340. Northouse, G 2007, Leadership Theory and Practice, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Russell, R and Stone, A 2002, A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V and Kuzmenko, T 2004, ‘Transformational and ServantLeadership: Content and Contextual Comparisons’. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. Simons, T and Randall S 2000, “Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust". Journal of Applied Psychology. 85.1: 102-111. Webber, S. S., 2002, ‘Leadership and Trust Facilitating Cross-Functional Team Success. Journal of Management Development’. 21:201–14. Winston, B. E. 2004, ‘Servant Leadership at Heritage Bible College: A Single-Case Study’. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 600-617. Read More