Why do many managers prefer that their employees work in teams - Essay Example

?Why do many managers prefer that their employees work in teams? Does this necessarily deliver the workplace outcomes that these managers envisage? Why teamwork?: a managerial perspective Teamwork has been the new ‘mantra’ of modern corporatism. It is viewed as the panacea for all performance problems in a company. Managers of a majority of companies across the world desire and decide that their employees should work in teams because they think teamwork will improve efficiency and make the employees more satisfied. But from the research done so far and from the results obtained from the experiments of teamwork in companies, it is clear that teamwork need not necessarily deliver the outcomes that managers envisage. The problems in teamwork arise from it being something that involves humans who have different perceptions on one matter. Also it is very difficult to ensure equal opportunity in a team where talents at different levels act together. The hierarchy inside a team is also problematic. It is in this context that it is argued that teamwork is not delivering. At the same time, the proponents of teamwork have drawn attention to the successful outcomes that teamwork has brought about. History of teamwork Managers consider teamwork as a motivating factor and this was why GenXers of America were introduced with teamwork in their work places, which was a first time corporate reform of its kind (Appelbaum, Serena and Shapiro, 2004, 12). It was supposed to give more personal responsibility to them (Appelbaum, Serena and Shapiro, 2004, 12). It was also understood as originating from the GenXers’ search for sense of belonging (Appelbaum, Serena and Shapiro, 2004, 12). There have been many approaches in understanding and defining teamwork. It was initially observed that through teamwork, certain management objectives like, “positive attitude, risk-taking, individual and group responsibility and supportiveness have been achieved albeit very unevenly” (Findlay et al., 2000, 1567). By projecting the results of the small experiments of teamwork to a wider canvas, better productivity and more positive employee attitudes and behavior were expected of work-teams (Kirkman, Jones and Shapiro, 2000). Another viewpoint also emerged which saw teamwork as a function of employee self-aggrandizement by allowing the employees to make decisions in a creative manner (Ivancevich, n.d., 198). All these discussions, though defines teamwork differently, show how much value that new generation managements put in teamwork. Has employees welcomed teamwork ? There has been mixed response from the side of employees towards teamwork. One interesting criticism against teamwork has been that the employees were initially “bewitched” into teamwork rather than being logically convinced (McCabe, 2000, 209). But this argument is in a way, self-defeating because it agrees that employees have been accepting teamwork. By introducing teamwork, managements were trying to convince the employees that they were entering a new and more democratic cultural ambience (McCabe, 2000, 209). But later employees could not but see the inconsistencies in this management position. But if employees are disillusioned with teamwork as its critics say, then the question arises why teamwork has become such a catchy phrase in management. Another allegation that though the employees value teamwork as positive, “employees are protective of social difference within their ranks” (Findlay et al., 2000, 22). But it has to be kept in mind that the employees have been used to the social hierarchies involved with the conventional management structure, for very long. Hence, to argue that they would be rebelling against a less hierarchical situation is highly illogical. Does teamwork, really work? Why? The commonsense promoted at managerial levels of organizations that teamwork is beneficial to employees and it will enhance productivity is found to be only partially true by researchers (McCabe, 2000; Findlay et al, 2000). Findlay et al. (2000) have been critical about the exaggerated effectiveness of teamwork and have observed that the members of a team cannot be treated as if they are subjects of social engineering. On the contrary, it can also be argued that every management solution is basically social engineering. These authors (Findlay et al., 2003) have opined against teamwork, after reviewing contemporary psychological research on the subject (1553). Reservations have also been expressed on the common notion that “teamwork…(is).. a vehicle for regulating individualism” (Findlay et al., 2003, 1553). But even inside a team, individualism cannot be avoided as there necessary has to be a team leader and some sort of hierarchical work arrangement. Also, initially a person has to be selected into a team based on his individual performance. Thus the basic premise of constitution of a team itself is individualism. It is evident that there is a gap between the values promoted through teamwork and its practice (Findlay et al., 2000). Resistance on the part of employees is thought as caused by factors like, lack of “trust, cultural values and low tolerance for change” (Kirkman, Jones and Shapiro, 2000). To be clearer, inside a team, issues of trust, cultural gap and low tolerance have to be expected. The resistance to team work is also attributed to issues like, “(1) managerial support, (2) role clarity, (3) workload distribution issues, and (4) team social support… (and also the)… fairness of the criteria used to make decisions about teams (i.e., procedural justice) and the fairness of the interpersonal treatment received during the transition to teams (i.e., interactional justice” (Kirkman, Jones and Shapiro, 2000, 76). All these aspects of teamwork reflect issues that are usually supposed to have no connection with teamwork. For example, managerial support and workload distribution issues refer to hierarchy, and, role clarity and interpersonal treatment refer to individualism. One major factor that creates resistance to teamwork is, according to McCabe (2000), the “employee intransigence born of their earlier life experiences” (204). Another negative factor is that all individuals in a team might not be influenced by the same motivations. This is why it is said, “individuals at different organizational levels, with different earning power, may have different motivation values” (Wiley, 1997, 273). A typical work-team in a company would always be inclusive of people having different “employment status, gender, income and occupation” and this will be a factor that limits the scope of teamwork (Wiley, 1997, 278). The socio-demographic diversity inside a team can be so influential that laying down a single mode of work or a common perception of the goals can turn into a utopia. Also, generally, the employees are found to think that teamwork was introduced in their company not to favor them but to enhance the technical convenience (Findlay et al., 2000). This is to say teamwork helps on the technical side rather than in enhancing normative integration, performance and output (Findlay et al., 2000). It is inferred that “only in a few aspects does…(teamworking)… resemble what the literature suggests…(it)…might look like” (Proctor, 2002, 305). Also it follows naturally that after teamwork was introduced, “the range of work is little changed, employees exercise little in the way of new skills, they appear reluctant to adopt responsibility for the work of others, and the performance management system continues to operate on the basis of individual performance” (Proctor, 2002, 305). There are contradictions involved in the role of the team leader as well. It is seen that “the tension inherent in the team leader role is that the pressure for results might cause a reversion to methods that may be more familiar or seem more capable of generating short-term improvements” (Proctor, 2002, 315). Because of this contradiction, “teamworking and the performance management system were widely seen as being simply inconsistent with each other” (Proctor, 2002, 316). Here, the basic problem is also that “teams are composed of people who have a variety of emotional, social, and other human needs that the team as whole can either help to meet or frustrate” (West, 2004, 2). From all the factors considered above, it can be seen that teamwork has only partially delivered what was expected of it. Will teamwork deliver in future? Only the handing over of certain powers to the teams will ensure that and this is where teamwork has still great relevance. Also the positive results obtained from self-managed teams point in this direction. In such a backdrop, teamwork has to be “reconstituted and re-represented so as to secure ends other than those intended by management” (McCabe, 2000, 204). Apart from efficiency enhancement and employee satisfaction, teamwork has to incorporate more creativity, more flexible yet focused structural aspects, and more faith in shared successes. The observation made by McCabe that, “an alternative to the official teamworking discourse …(is)…beginning to emerge” is of course encouraging information (2000, 219). Proctor (2002) has also confirmed this. There is a two way process happening- a) the employees welcoming teamwork as a concept having the potential to bring in positive change, and b) the employees taking the concept at their own stride (Proctor, 2000). It is from the dynamics of this process that a new framework for teamwork can be expected to emerge. To conclude, attention has to be paid to what West (2004) has described- the two fundamental features of the functioning of the team- “the task the team is required to carry out, and the social factors that influence how members experience the team as a social unit” (2). The task is context specific and need not be discussed here. But the second feature mentioned here is the most important one. To cultivate the feeling among employees that a work-team is a social unit is the need of the hour. Only then will teamwork deliver in a desired manner. References Appelbaum, S.H. Serena, M. and Shapiro, B.T. 2004, Generation X and the Boomers: Organizational Myths and Literary Realities, Management Research News, Vol.27, No.1-28. Findlay et al., Dec 2000. In Search of Perfect People: Teamwork and Team Players in the Scottish Spirits Industry, Human Relations 53, 12: pp. 1549-1574. Ivancevich, n.d., Orgn Behavior and Mgmt (Sie) 7E, Noida: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Kirkman, B.L., Jones, R.G. and Shapiro, D.L., 2000. Why Do Employees Resist Teams? Examining the Resistance Barrier to Work Team Effectiveness, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol.11, No.1: p.74-92. McCabe, D., 2000. The Team Dream: The Meaning and Experience of Team-Working for Employees in an Automobile Manufacturing Company, In S.Proctor and F.Mueller (eds) Teamworking, London: MacMillan. Proctor, S., 2002, How Teamworking Works in the Inland Revenue, Personnel Review, Vol.31, No.3, p.304-319. West, M.A., 2004. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research, London: Wiley-Blackwell. Wiley, C. 1997, What Motivates Employees According to Over 40 Years of Motivation Surveys, International Journal of Manpower, Vol.18, No.3, pp.263-280. Read More