Effective Team Working and Group Efficiency - Essay Example

? Effective team working, group efficiency and performance 8 April Table of contents Introduction 3 Group efficiency 4 Group performance 7 Conclusion 13 Reference list 14 Introduction A increasing number of research evidence in the organization and management literatures indicates that work teams can fluctuate significantly in the extent to which they conduct activities connected to learning and continuous development and that these differences impact team performance (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher 2010; Kauffeld & Meyers 2009; Vegt et al. 2010). Nowadays, a firm’s success depend on its ability to advance and adapt more rapidly than its competitors, and teams with the capacity to incessantly improve processes and approaches to function more quickly, efficiently, and sharply have become a significant competitive advantage (Liu & Batt 2010; Minichilli, Zattoni, & Zona 2009). How teams manage conflict and diversity can also improve decision-making, and consequently, innovation and team performance (Lira et al. 2008; Kauffeld & Meyers 2009). Furthermore, contemporary literature proposes that effective team working is essential for group efficiency and performance. Numerous arguments have been made to describe and explain team effectiveness. For instance, both sociotechnical theory (Pasmore 1988 qtd. in Delarue et al. 2008, p.27) and work design theory (Hackman & Oldham 1976 qtd. in Delarue et al. 2008, p.27) focuses on the design of the group’s task and its relationship to positive results; self-leadership theory has determined that supervisory behaviours help self-managing teams attain success (Manz and Sims 1987 qtd. in Delarue et al. 2008, p.127); and theories of participative management assert that some factors of the organisational context lead to team effectiveness (Huber & Lewis 2010; Jehn et al. 2010). However, theoretical arguments about group effectiveness and group efficiency are not adequate. There should be additional studies on how they can be achieved and preserved. By evaluating this contemporary literature, how can this ‘group efficiency’ and ‘group performance’ be gained and subsequently maintained?” This paper examines the strategies and factors that can achieve and maintain ‘group efficiency’ and ‘group performance.’ Group efficiency Group efficiency refers to the efficiency in attaining group goals (Delarue et al. 2008, p.129). Also, for this paper, although groups and teams can be conceptually different, wherein groups are not always considered as teams, teams and groups will be used interchangeably. Groups will refer to teams also that are made to attain team objectives that can differ according to organisational needs or strategies. Findings showed that factors affecting group efficiency also impact group performance (Delarue et al. 2008; Liu & Batt 2010). This research discusses these factors leading to group efficiency separately, but they can also directly or indirectly impact group performance. By indirect relationship, this suggests how certain factors can mediate team performance, such as what Human resource management (HRM) practices can do in influencing group efficiency and group performance (Chuang & Liao 2010; Tsai et al. 2010). Leadership and management Supervisors, acting as organisational leaders, can impact group efficiency and group performance. HR literature has determined three dimensions of the HR system that develop performance: investment in training, work designed to permit employees to interact and develop their skills and problem-solving abilities, and incentives to inspire effort (Chuang & Liao 2010; Tsai et al. 2010; Liu & Batt 2010). Liu and Batt (2010) examined the role of supervisors in enhancing employee performance through employing coaching and group management practices. It studies also the individual and synergistic impacts of these management practices. The research subjects consist of call centre agents in highly standardised jobs, and the organizational context apply to that which calls, or task assignments, are arbitrarily distributed via automatic technology, which gives a quasi-experimental approach in a realistic setting. Findings showed that the amount of coaching that an employee obtained each month forecasted objective performance enhancements throughout time (Liu & Batt 2010). In addition, workers displayed higher performance where their supervisor stressed group assignments and group incentives and where technology was more automated (Liu & Batt 2010). Lastly, the positive relationship between coaching and performance was more significant where supervisors made more use of group incentives, where technology was less automated, and where technological changes were less recurrent (Liu & Batt 2010). These findings indicate that the level of automation and technological change can moderate the impact of coaching on group performance. Commitment enhancement Other studies assert that enhancing commitment can improve group efficiency. Minichilli, Zattoni, and Zona (2009) studied the group performance of board members. They argued that board task performance refers to “the ability of the board to perform six tasks related both to service (advice, networking and strategic participation) and control (behavioural, output and strategic control)” (Minichilli et al. 2009, p. 56). They used past studies to determine the three antecedents of board task performance: “board members’ diversity, commitment, and critical debate” (Minichilli et al. 2009, p. 56). They conducted a survey among the CEOs of large Italian companies. They verified their model using a multiple ordinary least squares regression analysis and they controlled for the most studied board demographic characteristics (i.e. board size, CEO duality, CEO and directors’ shareholding, and proportion of outside directors) and for firm- and industry-level variables (Minichilli et al. 2009, p. 56). Results showed that 1) the predictors, especially board members’ commitment, are far more significant than board demographics for affecting board task performance; 2) firm and industry contexts impact board task performance; and 3) Predictors have different effects on particular sets of tasks (Minichilli et al. 2009, p. 56). The results also corroborated the idea that a number of board characteristics and contingencies at both industry and firm level must be considered in board design. Van Steenbergen and Ellemers (2009) assessed the employment of particular forms of commitment to the work itself, aside from the general organisational commitment. They conducted studies from large financial services organisation to scrutinise whether these forms of commitment help forecast employees’ job performance, their internal mobility within the organisation, and organisational turnover. Findings showed that commitment measures connect to organisational turnover intentions, internal mobility intentions, and self-rated job performance. These articles suggest that commitment affects motivations of staying with the company, promotion, and individual and group performance. Commitment can impact group efficiency, because with commitment, people can perform their jobs with dedication and this can cut delays and costs to some extent. Group cohesion promotion Cohesion can be described as “group members’ inclinations to forge social bonds, resulting in members sticking together and remaining united” (Carron 1982 qtd. in Casey-Campbell & Martens 2009, p.224). There are also definitions that concentrate on interpersonal affection between group members, though these definitions are not generally accepted by researchers (Mudrack 1989a qtd. in Casey-Campbell & Martens 2009, p.224). Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009) conducted a review of literature on the antecedents and consequences of group cohesion. In general, a strong sense of cohesion can improve the communication between group members, which may lead to greater participation and improved goal, task and role acceptance (Cartwright 1968 qtd. in Casey-Campbell & Martens 2009, p.227). Shaw asserted that the accepted positive relationship between performance and cohesion can be rooted from the popular belief that group members will work harder to accomplish group goals when cohesion is high (Casey-Campbell & Martens 2009, p.227). What can enhance group cohesion? Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009) mentioned studies that identification with the group and interpersonal ties can enhance group cohesiveness. This article indicates that the management should improve identification with the group and interpersonal ties, so that group cohesion can be developed. Greater group cohesion can improve interrelations and trust, which can impact time factors and quality in making and implementing group decisions and tasks. Trust is critical to group interaction and cohesion (Mach, Dolan, & Tzafrir 2010). Group performance Group performance pertains to the attainment of group goals and is often related to group efficacy or efficiency (Delarue et al. 2008; Liu & Batt 2010). This section explores the factors that should be identified and integrated when determining how to affect group performance. Incentive structure Pay and benefits rewards systems are shown by some studies to impact group performance. HRM has a large role in designing effective group performance incentives. HR can produce an effective performance management system to impact team and organisational performance (Chuang & Liao 2010). Tsai, Edwards, and Sengupta (2010) prepare an alternative conceptualisation of the association between HR and organisational performance. Their model stresses that organisational performance affects employee attitudes and that the performance-attitude relationship is mediated by HRM practices. To check their model, they performed management interviews and employee surveys for thirty-two small firms in the Midlands of England that belong to diverse industries. Findings showed that HRM practices are directly related to two dimensions of employees' attitudes: “perceptions of management skills and the perceived link between reward and performance” (Tsai et al. 2010, p.15). This provides evidence that HRM can impact links between reward and performance. Chuang and Liao (2010), Delarue et al. (2008) and Zhang and Li (2009) asserted the significance of high-performance HR practices, which respond to internal and external customers, so that group and organisational performance can be simultaneously achieved. Another study opposes the findings of Tsai, Edwards, and Sengupta (2010) and Chuang and Liao (2010). Libby and Thorne (2009) examined the effect of incentive structure on group performance in assembly lines. This is based on complex results from previous studies, where it is unclear if cooperation or individual incentives can impact group performance. On the one hand, if there is no possible benefit from promoting cooperation among group members in a production environment, such as conventional assembly line, then individual incentives, which encourage group members to work harder on their own assigned task, will be more successful than group incentives in affecting overall group performance (Libby & Thorne 2009, p.58). On the other hand, when there are benefits to cooperation and information sharing among group members, group incentives that encourage interaction among group members may produce higher group performance (Libby & Thorne 2009, p.58). Findings showed that there was no difference in group performance that will rely on incentive structure for assembly lines; however, group performance is higher for teams with group incentives (Libby & Thorne 2009). This indicates that group incentives may confuse individuals in their work efforts, although this has to be tested further. Conflict management How teams manage conflict management can affect group performance. Jehn, Rispens, and Thatcher (2010) studied conflict asymmetry and it is a “configural team property that reflects the variance in perceptions among team members” (Jehn et al. 2010, p.596). They suggested that the asymmetry of perceptions concerning conflict is significant to think about. They investigated two features of conflict, aside from the mean level of conflict that was commonly studied in the past: “group conflict asymmetry and individual conflict asymmetry” (Jehn et al. 2010, p.596). Group conflict asymmetry is a “group-level construct” that pertains to the level to which a group’s members vary in their perception of how much conflict there is in the group (Jehn et al. 2010, p.596). Findings showed that when a group’s members distinguish different levels of conflict, showing group conflict asymmetry, performance and creativity in that group are lessened (Jehn et al. 2010, p.608). At the individual level, they discovered that conflict asymmetry is more than the conventionally studied effects of mean group conflict level in forecasting individual outcomes such as satisfaction with a team and reported performance (Jehn et al. 2010, p.609). This article suggests that conflict asymmetry should be positively managed to contribute also to improved group performance. Furthermore, a study shows that intragroup conflict should be managed to contribute to group performance. Lira et al. (2008) examined the role of information and communication technologies in the association between intragroup conflict and group potency. They conducted a laboratory experiment to compare face-to-face groups and computer-mediated communication (CMC) groups. Each group finished a project over a one-month period. Task-related conflict has been described as divergent views and opinions among group members about the tasks being done and the understanding of task-related information (Lira et al. 2008, p.108). Findings showed that groups experiencing higher levels of relationship conflict have a lower group potency level. Relationship conflict hinders with the development of the conviction in a group that it can be successful. It is important to manage task conflict early and design intervention measures in advance. However, Kauffeld and Meyers (2009) conducted a study that showed that conflict should be followed by solutions too. Focusing on complaints alone can trigger of a cycle of complaining. Complaining can be defined as an “expression of an active-unpleasant affective state” (Kauffeld & Meyers 2009, p.273). On the one hand, complaining statements, in which the apparent negative and unalterable actual state, as well as the apparent role of victim, is cooperatively stressed, are frequently communicated through “killer phrases” such as “nothing could be done” or “nothing works” (Kauffeld & Meyers 2009, p.273). They can negatively affect group-decision making process (Kauffeld & Meyers 2009, p.273). On the other hand, solution-oriented statements can be defined as “expressions of active-pleasant affective states” (Kauffeld & Meyers 2009, p.273). Solution-oriented statements facilitate decision-making statements, and commonly integrate statements that (a) recognise solutions or partial solutions, (b) explain the solutions, (c) establish links between the solutions or name advantages of solutions, and (d) express objections or problems with a solution (Kauffeld & Meyers 2009, p.273). Objections to solutions are positive when they can improve solutions (Kauffeld & Meyers 2009, p.273). Hence, conflict management must strive to focus on solution orientations too. Leadership style Leadership style can impact group efficiency and performance. Tabernero et al. (2009) explored the impact of the perception of task behaviour and relationship behaviour of the group leader on the expansion of relational versus transactional normative contracts, group processes, and team performance. The role of perceived leadership – task- or relationship-oriented – was studied in relation to the improvement of relational normative contract and group performance. The study sample is made of 72 participants (24 groups of 3 members). A member of each team received training in being a task- or relationship-oriented leader. All groups operated in a similar simulation program: a complex decision-making managerial task. Group regulatory variables and group processes were assessed. Findings showed that task-oriented leaders affected higher group efficacy and positivism among members of the group, while relationship-oriented leaders impacted greater cohesion between the group’s members. The final group performance can be explored from the perspective of group efficacy and the relational normative contract. This article provides evidence that leadership style, with certain kinds of focus, can impact specific factors of group performance. Leadership that provides important group feedback can also motivate group performance. Vegt et al. (2010) investigated the moderating role of type of performance feedback on the individual or collective orientation of team members. They suggested that whereas individual feedback strengthens the pessimistic effects of power asymmetry on team learning, group feedback promotes a collective orientation within a team that changes power differences into a stimulus for team learning. Team learning pertains to the “activities by which team members seek to acquire, share, refine, or combine task-relevant knowledge through interaction with one another” (Van der Vegt and Bunderson 2005, p. 534 qtd. in Vegt et al. 2010, p.348). They conduct multimethod studies on 218 individuals in 46 teams. Findings showed that that team learning is a mediator of the relationship between power asymmetry and team performance. It suggests that power asymmetry can be a source for and not just an obstruction to team learning in power-asymmetric teams. Leadership should also espouse teamworking, which directly impacts group performance. Delarue et al. (2008) studied how teamwork can impact team performance. They named four major dimensions of performance. These are: “1) attitudinal outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, trust and involvement; 2) behavioural outcomes, including turnover, absenteeism, extra role behaviour and ‘concertive’ control; 3) operational outcomes such as productivity, quality of the product or service, innovation and flexibility; and 4) financial outcomes such as added value, added value per employee and profitability” (p.130). Findings showed that teamwork will be positively connected to organisational outcomes, any positive association between teamworking and performance can be explained by the effect of teamworking on employee attitudes and behaviours and/or organisational structure, and organisational and environmental factors will moderate the connection between teamwork and organisational performance. This study asserts the importance of teamworking practices and procedures. It is also important to design organisational and environmental factors that will lead to teamworking. Cross-understanding One article asserts the impact of cross-understanding on group performance. Cross-understanding pertains to the degree to which group members have a precise understanding of one another’s mental models (Huber & Lewis 2010, p.7). This knowledge can change through inter-member communications or interactive incidents; from observations of members’ communications or behaviours; and values and beliefs (Huber & Lewis 2010, p.7). Cross-understanding is a “group-level, compositional construct” (Miller 1978 qtd. in Huber & Lewis 2010, p.7). Huber and Lewis (2010) studied the impact of cross-understanding on group performance. Findings suggest that the cross-understanding construct can be helpful for better understanding of group performance complexity. This paper suggests that cross-understanding can be enhanced through better communication processes and providing trainings for communication and multicultural interaction skills for diverse teams. These skills can improve cross-understanding, which can subsequently impact group performance. Conclusion Group efficiency, teamworking, and group effectiveness are inextricably linked. Group efficiency is commonly connected to group effectiveness. Teamworking is critical to group efficiency and group effectiveness. Studies showed the importance of leadership, incentive structure, trust, cross-understanding, group cohesion, commitment, and other mediating factors to group efficiency and group effectiveness. HRM has a large role to play in affecting group performance and the management should consider HR tools and practices on this regard. Furthermore, individual and group incentives can have mixed effects on group performance and it is critical to understand individual and group performance motivations, before ascertaining what incentives will work on individual and group levels. Hence, this study showed that teamworking is not always a natural effort and management interventions and trainings are necessary to design work systems that promote group efficiency, teamworking, and group effectiveness. Reference list Casey-Campbell, M. & Martens, M.L., 2009 ‘Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature,’ International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.223-246. Chuang, C. & Liao, H., 2010 ‘Strategic human resource management in service context: taking care of business by taking care of employees and customers,’ Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp.153-196. Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Procter, S., & Burridge, M, 2008 ‘Teamworking and Casey-Campbell, M. & Martens, M.L., 2009 ‘Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature,’ International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.223-246. Huber, G.P. & Lewis, K., 2010 ‘Cross-understanding: implications for group cognition and performance,’ Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.6-26. Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S.M.B., 2010 ‘The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes,’ Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp.596-616. Kauffeld, S. & Meyers, R.A., 2009 ‘Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions,’ European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.267-294. Libby, T. & Thorne, L., 2009 ‘The influence of incentive structure on group performance in assembly lines and teams,’ Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.57-72. Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiro, J. M., & Orengo, V., 2008 ‘How do different types of intragroup conflict affect group potency in virtual compared with face-to-face teams? A longitudinal study,’ Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.107-114. Liu, X. & Batt, R., 2010 ‘How supervisors influence performance: a multilevel study of coaching and group management in technology-mediated services,’ Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp.265-298. Mach, M., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S., 2010 ‘The differential effect of team members' trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion,’ Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp.771-794. Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., & Zona, F., 2009 ‘Making boards effective: an empirical examination of board task performance,’ British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.55-74. Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J., Curral, L., & Arana, J.M., 2009 ‘The role of task-oriented versus relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and group performance,’ Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp.1391-1404. Tsai, C., Edwards, P., & Sengupta, S., 2010 ‘The associations between organisational performance, employee attitudes and human resource management practices,’ Journal of General Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.1-20. Van Steenbergen, E.F. & Ellemers, N., 2009 ‘Feeling committed to work: how specific forms of work-commitment predict work behavior and performance over time,’ Human Performance, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.410-431. Vegt, G.S.V., Jong, S. B. de, Bunderson, J. S., & Molleman, E., 2010 ‘Power asymmetry and learning in teams: the moderating role of performance feedback,’ Organization Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.347-361. Zhang, Y. & Li, S., 2009 ‘High performance work practices and firm performance: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry in China,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp.2331-2348. Read More