Performance Pressure as a Double-Edged Sword - Research Paper Example

? Performance Pressure as a Double-edged Sword: Enhancing Team Motivation but Undermining the Use of Team Knowledge 11th, October, 2012 Introduction Organizations can accomplish complex goals if they employ the aspect of working as a team. A team is a small group of individuals each with some complementary skills and work towards to accomplishing a common goal. Team members should have the same or similar goals such as same perceptions, thought processes, and attitudes, which keeps them focused towards a joint goal. Management of organizations deploys team of experts on high-stake projects to tap form the pool of knowledge presented by the team. Organizational management has one goal in mind that the team will use their diverse expertise, productivity, and creativity to achieve more innovative and comprehensive solutions that an individual will not achieve. In the 21st century, teamwork is the key to differentiated products in the market. Forming a team is an easy task, but making that team produce results proves quite a task at times. Team pressure among other factors can hinder excellent performance of a team. The paper discusses two case studies of research that analyzed the effects of pressure on the performance of teams. Analysis of the two Case Studies The first case study endeavors to reveal the effects of performance pressure on teams. The researcher selected 110 teams from AuditCo on three dimensions. They included client’s governance as an indicator of complexity, client’s length of relationship with AuditCo to indicate uncertainty levels, and size of the team as an indicator of interpersonal familiarity. The study considered several measurable factors including performance pressure, team performance, team effort directing actions, general professional expertise, domain-specific expertise, and recognition of general expertise. Firm client prior relationship, project complexity, team size, and project duration were used as the control variables. The results depicted a significance difference between the two proposed equations. That is team under pressure rely more on general expertise other that domain specific expertise than will produce results that can better satisfy the clients (Gardner, 2012). In addition, the study revealed that use of general expertise does not enhance team performance. The clients have a great expectation especially when the project in question is critical. Unlike the expectations, teams use domain specific expertise least when they are expected to use it the most delivering generic results. This means that pressure has an effect in a team and the less the pressure the more the team uses critical information, producing better results. The second case examines the behavioral mechanisms underlying knowledge suppression. The study will examine whether teams focus on one kind of knowledge at the expense of another, even what was previously valuable. The study involves six case studies based on their start date and expected duration, their size, and content variation. In total, the study observed 45 meetings aggregating to 81 hours. The study noted that performance pressure might vary at different levels, which called for data coding and performing reliability checks. The study based this on the level of performance pressure per meeting, team behaviors and processes involving expertise usage, and reference to expertise types. Additionally, the study included three set of analysis. The first examined the behaviors undermining teams’ use of different kinds of expertise using individual’s behavior in respect to various roles assigned to them. Secondly, the study analyzed the effects of performance pressure on team member’s behavior using the behavior of team members at the meetings. Thirdly, the study evaluated variations in performance pressure and team knowledge use emerging from prior analysis (Gardner, 2012). The results of this revealed that under low-pressure levels, team members were more likely to ask for clarifications, take notes, contribute and acknowledge others contributions. In high performance pressure, meetings team members acted in fear, which undermined their capabilities. This is displayed in checking email or phones when another is contributing or general interruptions. Therefore, performance pressure suppressed knowledge. Critic of the Two Case Studies The two case studies are extensive enough to come up with the conclusion that performance pressure adversely affects teams. Although many researchers has come up with the fact that many teams do not reach their expectations, they do not explain in detail what happens in the team meetings that affects their performance. The studies collect information from the team members, their leaders, and supervisors, which is critical for evaluations. According to Woehr et al., “different evaluation perspectives offer unique and valuable assessment of individual performance” (2005). For instance, in the first case study, the team manager circulated the emails of all team members to the researcher for ease access of information. After giving each member some survey questions, the researcher made follow-ups with clients in questions senior partner, ensuring extensive collection of information. Further, the researcher asked for contacts of key client’s management to evaluate team’s performance. Another aspect that persuades me to agree with this study is the capturing of small details in the study. This is visible in the second study that aims at uncovering how performance pressure affects team processes. The researcher follows the team in each of their meetings to capture both verbal and non-verbal indications. These include team members taking notes, turning backs on others, nodding in agreement, raising their voices, deliberate eye contacts with others, and pre and post meeting discussions. These reveal special reactions to pressure on the teams. Comments to the Case Studies The study has extensively used the work of other researchers showing a high level of credibility. For instance, in examining general professional expertise, Gardner used the work of Hitt el al. to show consistency in previous research (2006). Hence, he used objective indicators to capture general professional expertise, level of professional knowledge, and professional tenure. The credibility of the researcher come out also in the way he chooses to validate his study. Presentations of the two case studies include diagrams for easy access of information and understanding. The two case studies established different dimensions of study that narrow down to the specific aspect of study. According to Bunderson, it is inappropriate to assess teams without first establishing their dimensions (2003). Besides assessing members’ backgrounds as proxies for distinct functional expertise, it is important to evaluate how those teams use the expertise (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002). Additionally, the samples included in the two studies were lather small to make the generalization that performance pressure on teams affects their performance. Furthermore, the samples came from only two companies, and the people called to make comments on the performance of the teams were clients of the two companies. The process is biased. Suggestions The samples of teams should be bigger and come from different set of companies to make a general conclusion. Larger samples from different organizations assist the researcher in evaluating the extent of generalizing to other organizations and occupational settings (Savelsbergh et al., 2010). Additionally, the people called to evaluate performance of the teams should come from different companies other than the clients who have contracted teams to work for them. This will reduce the bias posed in the two case studies. The study was cross sectional because it collected data at one point in time. Using multi-wave designs that collect data over time can provide information that is more specific. In conclusion, the studies revealed that team performance pressure is a double-edged sword that enhances team’s motivation, undermining knowledge. References Bunderson, S. (2003). ‘‘Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly Journal, 48, 557–591. Bunderson, S., and Sutcliffe, K. ( 2002). ‘‘Comparing Alternative Conceptualizations of Functional Diversity in Management Teams: Process and Performance Effects.’’ Academy of Management Journal, 45: 875–893. Gardner, H. (2012). “Performance Pressure as a Double-edged Sword: Enhancing Team Motivation but Undermining the Use of Team Knowledge.”Administrative Science Quarterly Journal. 57(1), 1-46. Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K. and Shimizu, K. (2006). ‘‘The importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: The good, the bad, and the ugly.’’ Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1137–1157. Savelsbergh, C., Heijden, B., and Poel, R., (2010). “Attitudes towards factors in?uencing team performance.” Team Performance Management Journal, 16(7/8), 451-474. Woehr, D., Sheehan, M., and Bennett, W. (2005). “Assessing Measurement Equivalence Across Rating Sources: A Multitrait-Multimethod Approach.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 90(3), 592-600. Read More