Effective Management for the Success of the Team - Essay Example

? Effective team and performance management Summary Most companies in the current business environment are of forming team with individuals with different skills, experiences, cultural beliefs and religion background. The major challenge of such organization is to develop a team with diverse employees into an effective team (Catalyst consulting Team n.y.). Consistent, industrious and efficient work together towards a common goal, share common resources, have ways of resolving conflicts, plan their work towards their goals as a team, understand each others skills and abilities and share responsibilities (Bakken 2007. P.1). Tuckman theory of team formation and development is the most acknowledged model of team development and occurs in four stages which are forming, storming, norming and performing (Johnson 2010, P. 17). After the performing stage Tuckman developed another stage and named it as the adjourning stage (Edison 2008, P. 14). Meredith Belbin’s team theory analysis the roles played by team members depending on their characteristics and behaviors as well as interpersonal styles. Team performance is affected by its characteristics in regards to size, team norms, team cohesion, management styles, conflict resolutions approaches and feelings among the team members towards each other. Effective management is important for the success of the team. An effective team manager adopts different management styles depending on the arising situation in the workplace (Efere, 2003). There are several team management styles namely authoritarian style, democratic style, laissez-Faire Style, paternalistic, concertive style among others which a manager or a company can adopt (Efere, 2003). This paper will critically evaluate theories on team dynamics, formation, conflict resolutions, factors affecting team performance and offer recommendations for the management to improve teams in Electron Company if adopted. Introduction An effective team may is able to move to and from one stage to another. A company may change its strategy and therefore form different teams. Electron Company changed its management structure and team management to increase performances. Electron is a manufacturing company dealing with telecommunication components and is situated in United Kingdom, established in 1997 as a department and sold out ten years later in 2007 as the original company opted to subcontract its manufacturing department and that is why up to today the company is still the leading client of electron. The management structure was not changed. However the company did not perform as expected and this necessitated change in its production practices by escalating productivity, improved client services and improved team performance. A new management approach was introduced to help the different teams achieve productivity objectives in a period of two months and in addition the teams that were to meet their objectives, to all members were paid additional benefits. In the restructured format, new employees were employed on temporary basis while the old employees were distributed to all the teams to help the new members adapt into the company. The teams had the authority to establish their working norms which they would follow and the new team members we supposed to comprehend and follow the teams’ norms and values and therefore the teams were affirming concertive control on the newly employed. Team formation In an organization employees of a specific department work as a team or in some cases teams are established to perform a specific task. Evaluations of the teams are conducted periodically to determine their performance or set new goals after the team is formed it takes time to grow and mature to an efficient team. Several theories explain team dynamics and development and most sociologist point to relationship and personal characteristics of the members involved (Nazzaro and Strazzabosco 2009). Tuckman’s model of team development Tuckman's group development model pays attention on how teams handle their duties and responsibility from the time of formation to the time the task is completed and if applicable the changes that occur in the time over time (Washington Depts. n. y.). The four stages of team growth and development are forming, storming, norming and performing (Russell 2013, pp5.). The stages of team development as described in Tuckmans model are as follows. Formation is the initial stage of the team where duties are allocated to the team and team members acts independently since they do not know each other well to fully trust each other (Catalyst consulting Team n.y). The team may be improved from the existing teams or formed from the start. In this stage the team members wait on the team leader for instructions and therefore the leader must be willing to communicate freely with his members and give guidance to any challenge (Wilson 2010, P. 2). Electron changed its management styles to achieve competitive advantages and innovativeness over other companies. New teams were formed and Jack, an old employee was given the responsibility of ensuring old and experienced members were distributed to the teams to help the new employees adapt to the company. This is the transformation stage from less functioning team to a productive team (Edison 2008 P. 17). Storming stage is the most challenging time for all members since most members are interested with making a lasting impression than moving the team forward (Wilson 2010, P. 2). As a result there can be frictions and differences within the team and the team leader must come up with a way to resolve the differences and work together to achieve a common team goal. If this stage is not properly handled it lowers the motivation levels of the team, it can be stressful to the members thus affecting performance. The manager and the team members should concentrate on improving their team and evaluate team development and establishing a win-win situation for each member (Wellington and Foster 2009, P. 75). Every member should be permitted to express their unique characteristics and ideas which are not disparaging negative to the growth of the team (Johnson 2010, P. 18). If the team sails through this stage members develop trust amongst each other and the team might gradually easily grow out of storm. In Electron, old team members laid down team values to be followed and new members were supposed to adopt these set rules but with time the new members did not stick to the rules and the team leader realized that their meetings focused on following the team Norms than working together as a team, there was discord amongst members and any member diverting from the laid down norms was seen not as a team player. Afterwards new team members changed and adopted to the respective teams norms. Norming is the third stage after the team has resolved their differences, duties and responsibility of each team member has been established, members are considerate and willing to drop negative behaviors that can impede team’s growth, stability has been established while goals and target has been set and supported by team members. In this stage team can set goals and develop new ideas to achieve these goals and failure is considered as one step towards their success. Members are allowed to exercise their different skills, talents and experiences for the betterment of the team. In the case of the Electron where the new team members who fitted well into the norms of their team were rewarded through recommendation to full time employments while the members who resisted were punished. The manager should recognize team members’ personal strengths allocate responsibilities equally, Encourage members to work for a common goal and support the team members to grow their skills on team work for the next stage (Kelly at el 2003). Performing is the stage which the team has clear goals and roles and members have developed trust that they can work effectively together therefore they work to achieve the desired result with less management issues. The manager is a participating member of the team who only offers guidance where necessary (Washington Depts. n. y.). The decision making process is inclusive and high level of respect is expected at this stage among all members of the teams to achieve high performance. This is the stage where most teams desire to be, as opinion and honesty helps to resolve any conflict among members without the manager, whose main concern is to find developing opportunities for his team. In case of a disagreement members resolve it amicably while consulting the leader occasionally (Wellington and Foster 2009, P. 75). Catalyst consulting Team argued that members have full accountability for the team’s responsibilities and associations, the team accomplishes efficient and rewarding outcomes, the team takes continuous assessment of external factors affecting the team and members easily work together for the benefits of the team. According to Wilson (2010, P. 2) the team is at its optimum performance with positive conflicts since the leader and his team members works to their best towards a common goal without competing ideals and therefore they should recognize the effort of the other members and reward where necessary to avoid a case where any member feels that their effort is not appreciated, resentment may set in the subsequent tasks and the team may revert to storming which can be hard to conquer in the near future. In Electron company the rewarding of the effective teams promoted team work while individual rewarding of the new team members ensured that they adapt to the laid rules and norms in their teams. Adjourning as the last stage was later added to the four major stages to accommodate all types of teams (Cassidy 2007, P. 413). In case where the team was formed for a specific task the team breakup when the project come to an end but in depressing way since members were used to working together. The way the project and the team are disbanded can have deep effects on performance of the next team members join (Wilson 2010, P. 2). This model shows that teams that believe are in performing stage may be in another stage and the time of progression depends on other factors such as nature of team (Wellington and Foster 2009, P. 75). Belbin's Team Roles Model Meredith Belbin analyzed the roles by different team members depending on their behaviors as well as interpersonal styles (Mind Tools Ltd 2013). He came up in nine roles played by team members and divided into three categories namely action oriented who include shapers that challenge members to improve, implementers who implement the team’s ideals, completers who are perfectionist and ensure work is completed on time. The second categories are people related roles with the coordinators who are the managers, team workers are the negotiators within the team and resources investigators who are innovative and creative using the available resources to improve the team. The third roles are thought oriented with the plant that develop new ideas, monitor-evaluators who analyses the ideas and innovations of other people and the specialist who have the skills to do the job (Mind Tools Ltd 2013). Each and every role defined has a weakness and members need to improve on them to work well in a team. In Electron the roles are not clearly defined but new and old members are guided by the team norms to improve the team performance. Team structures and their impacting team performance Team norms These are standard and acceptable behaviors of team members and mostly deal with performance of members towards the team’s goals and all members must understand and follow the team’s norms (Salas 2007, P. 9). Team norms regulate how the team members interact with each other, communication channels, meetings and time management. In electron Company old team members developed their own Norms and new members were to understand these norms and follow them in conducting their duties. Team cohesion Team cohesion increases efficiency in task completion and team performance if members are united .The team must also focus on several areas to remain on the top in regards to their performance. First a team cannot work in isolation in a company but it is also affected by organizational culture which may hinder or accelerate team performance through their guidelines, rules, plans and resources. Second, all members must appreciate and recognize the team’s responsibility as well as the organizational duties and works towards achieving both team and organizational goals. Third, members must also accept and appreciate all the members in the team, understand their duties and roles in the team and avoid negative conflicts that do not contribute to the success of the team and in general the organization. Fourth, there must be clear polices on the flow of information, communication channels, problem solving, meeting the deadlines and the reporting procedures. Finally there must be a good relationship among the team members and their leader in regards to member’s uniqueness, talent recognition, rewarding of efforts and respect of members rights (Wellington and Foster 2009, P. 75). Management style Management styles affect team performance. Company’s Management can adopt authoritarian style, democratic style, laissez-Faire Style, paternalistic, concertive style among others (Efere, 2003). Electron chooses concertive style. Concertive control is a management style that transfer authority and decision making process from manager to the employees who are allowed to form regulations and customs in a work place that guide them in their work processes. They also develop structures on how to ensure that all members stick to the laid rules by rewarding members that corporate in achieving the set objective while punishing those who break the rules. These rules help in developing talents in an organization as well as allowing employees to feel as part of the company (Papa at el 1997, P. 221). Electron management allowed the old team members to form the norms and values that guided their teams and any new members were supposed to stick to the laid down rules. The team’s manager, Jack noticed that employees focused on the norms rather than the team objectives and team members could discuss performance in their meeting. The new member reward system to permanent employments for cooperating and sticking to the team’s rules helped the team performance to improve. Emotional intelligence This is a personal capacity to understand and control his emotions in addition to the emotions of other members in a team or a group. This is one characteristic that helps in the success of a team in an organization (Jones 2009). Jack of Electron allowed team members to fully participate in developing the rules that governs their teams as well as supervising each other and that is why his teams were successful. Team size and social loafing The team cohesion and performance is also affected by the team size and individual contribution Max Ringelmann argued that less group are more efficient than large groups by his experiment on teams pulling fixed rope. As the individual increases their mean energy decreased due to loss of coordination (Shepperd 1993, P. 67). Social loafing relates to the Max Ringelmann theory on team size as individuals exert little force when in a group than when working as an individual and therefore teams does not necessarily translate to efficiency (Shepperd 1993, P. 67). The team cohesion and performance is also affected by the team size. Organization should maintain small teams as for the case of Electron management that formed teams of 10 members. According to Ilgen at el (2005.P. 533), team members are able understanding each other when a team reasonable number of people Team and Performance Recommendations There is a necessity to instill a strategic leadership assigned to a manager who has an aptitude to express a strategic vision and have capacity and a right emotional intelligence to persuade his/her subjects in the team to adopt the vision. New members were coerced into the concertive way of conducting themselves with little regard to their emotional intelligence as observed with Stephi who tried to conform to the values and norms of her team re-proving herself as a team player. While ascertaining Tuckmans’ model of team development in an organization, emotional intelligence (EI) need to prevail to bring harmony and understanding through identification, assessment and control of emotions of self, other team members and of other teams in group since EI entails ability and trait.(MayeR, Salovey, Caruso and Sitarenios 2001) Leadership is evidently lacking in the way the team leader observed hostility during team meetings but did nothing to quell the situation, his laidback style of leadership gave power to the original team members to influence new members. An evolutionary organizational change is most desirable since it will require internal factors that include reorganizing and restructuring from within to be able to meet future challenges with a proactive attitude to changes with less resistance. Conflict between team affects team performance. Sources of conflict between members of the same team or organization are resources availability, objectives of the team and organisation, position of the team, uncertainty in terms of goals and individual employees (Russell 2013, pp. 4). In Electron company there was conflict between members since the new members felt that the old members were controlling them. The team managers should identify the factors that stimulate the conflicts between team members and resolve them to enhance good working relationship between new and old members Team size is an important factor of team cohesion. The relationship between members of a small team is simple compared to a larger team due to the diversity in opinion and thus Electron management should maintain its team’s size of 10 members or reduce the size of the teams. Team members learn from each other as well as understanding each other in a team with reasonable number of people. The decision making process in the team is not well coordinated since there is no team streamline as there are no team managers. The decision making process should involves top managers, team managers and members. Management Recommendations Concertive control transfers the authority to the employees who set the regulations and customs that guide them in their duties to achieve specific objectives. Electron Company adopted this management styles to increase effectiveness and productivity in their manufacturing department. The concertive style is more like the Laissez Faire Leadership Style and though organizational changes are disruptive, an assertive leadership like democratic/participative leadership would work well with Electron where members are given opportunity to make decisions but the leader retains ultimate power to make the final decision (Efere, 2003). This way the leader guides his members on what and how to do their tasks and the employees can articulate their opinions and experiences to the leader. This leads to harmony, contentment and motivation creating an optimistic environment where creativity is encouraged and tolerated. Conclusion Though the concertive control way of leadership exercised by the Electron leadership seems to have worked in steering around the company from the storms and competition and the teams achieved their objectives and productivity improved it is evident that leadership needs to change tactics in future as the company grows. Organizational change is imperative and organizational members have to be influenced to accept the changes through proper employee management to mitigate confrontations like those observed in the electrons team meetings. References Bakken, E 2007, ‘Twelve Ways to Build an Effective’. Ceridian Corporation. Viewed 5 May 2013. Cassidy, K 2007, 'Tuckman Revisited: Proposing a New Model of Group Development for Practitioners', Journal Of Experiential Education, 29, 3, pp. 413-417, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 April 2013. Catalyst consulting Team (n.y). ‘Accelerating Team Development The Tuckman’s Model’ Center for Experiential Learning. Washington D.C Viewed 23 April 2013 Edison, T 2008, ‘Team Dynamics: The Team Development Life Cycle. Defense AT&L viewed 23 April 2013. Efere, P 2003, ‘Management Styles’. Trans-Atlantic College, London. http://www.bayelsa.org.uk/pdf/bsup-management-styles.pdf Ilgen, D, Hollenbeck, J, Johnson, M and Jundt, D 2005, 'Teams in organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models', Annual Review Of Psychology, 56, 1, pp. 517-543, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 April 2013. Johnson, P 2010, 'Four Steps to Effective Collaboration', Young Adult Library Services, 9, 1, pp. 17-19, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 April 2013. Kelly, D, Patel, V and Smart, C 2003, 'STAR PERFORMERS', Community Care, 1460, p. 40, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 April 2013. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=5b48b7d8-858b-41e4-af8c-ad96b5f5c22b%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9250894 Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DL, and Sitarenios, G 2001. Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232-242 Mind Tools Ltd 2013, ‘ Belbin's Team Roles: Understanding Team Roles to Improve Performance’. Mind Tools Ltd. Viewed 6 May 2013. Nazzaro, A and Strazzabosco, J 2009, ‘Group dynamics and Team building’. World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) Montreal, Canada. Papa, M.J, Auwal MA and Singhal, A 1997, ‘organizing for social change within concertive control systems: member identification, empowerment and the masking of discipline’. Communication monographs, Vol 64. Russell, S 2013, ‘Team conflict: Effective Team and Performance Management’. MOD 003554 Russell, S 2013,‘Team formation: Effective Team and Performance Management’. MOD 003554 Washington Depts (n. y). ‘Four (Five) Stages of Team Development – Bruce Tuckman’ viewed 23 April 2013. Salas, I 2007, ‘Team building’ World health organization. Viewed 6 may 2013. Shepperd, JA 1993, ‘Productivity Loss in Performance Groups: A Motivation Analysis’ Psychological Bulletin Vol. 113, No. 1,67-81 American Psychological Association, Inc. Wellington, P and Foster, N 2009, '21st century teamwork', Engineering & Technology (17509637), 4, 18, pp. 72-75, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 April 2013. Wilson, C 2010, ‘Bruce tuckman’s forming, storming, norming & performing Team development model’. Performance Coach Training. Viewed 23 April 2013. Read More