High Performance Team and How Trust Is Linked to It - Essay Example

High Performance Team Introduction The following literature review is based on my reflection on the definition of high performance team (HPT) and how trust is linked to HPT. For the purpose of this reflection paper, I will first identify a number of factors that are important in establishing HPT with interests being narrowed to factors such as effective channels of communication, productive conflict, positive climate and common goals. Although there are many other factors these are amongst a few that majority of the available literature has highlighted therefore implying their significance in establishment of HPT that would be highly productive. Reflection on Literature Review on Definitions of HPT In my literature review on available definitions of HPT, I have developed an assumption about what the concept involves based on what different writers have put forward. Literature on high performance teams presents different definitions for the concept but is generally agreed among scholars that such teams must have the capability to “consistently satisfy the needs of customers, employees, investors and others in its area of influence” while also emphasising that the teams should be able to “outperform other teams that produce similar products and services under similar conditions and constraints” (Kur 1996, p.34). It is also important to note that the level of satisfaction is based on the perspective of the stakeholders (Castka, Bamber, Sharp and Belohoubek, 2001) and not that of the team members. Although team members also gauge their own levels of success, they must unleash their potentials to satisfy the expectations and purpose set for them by the stakeholders (Kaplan and Norton, 2001; Neely, Adams and Kennerley, 2002). My assessment of how HPT work indicates that these teams present a departure from more traditional approaches used in human resources management as it is based on a need to transform the way workers are assigned duties and supervised for them to achieve the set objects. According to Godard and Delaney (2000), the concept of HPT breaks away from the traditional practice in Taylorist organizations where emphasis is placed on how to improve production for each individual through introduction of task specialisation, hierarchical structure and a centralisation of responsibilities. The Taylorist approach workers had to perform their roles that were divided into specific functions characterized by repetitive cycles with methods used to achieve desired results being predetermined. The consequence of this arrangement is that workers were not given the freedom to practice their innovative skills that would have improved their productivity essential for quick change and adaptation to unforeseen situations. HPT offers a new perspective that is based on improvement on the slowness and rigidity of traditional models of human resource organisation through involvement of workers who are allowed to exercise judgement, develop social contacts and learning of better practices (Brödner, 2007; Hasle and Møller, 2001). HPT is informed by the fact that the combined performance judged from the output of a team is higher than that in individual performance especially in cases where workplace responsibilities demand broader scope of judgement, knowledge, and opinion. The advantage with introduction of HPT is that the organization is guaranteed a formation of teamwork that will lead to momentous growth in productivity in areas that will require a high degree of adaptability, creative solutions to particular tasks, and effective operational management (Tuominen, Rajala and Möller, 2004). The level of performance in such teams is improved by the creation of an environment that facilitates faster knowledge and information exchange and knowledge sharing among the members. Organizations that adopt HPT strategy in performance of core tasks will be able to improve productivity while at the same time present employees with increased levels of job autonomy and greater responsibility that are essential in improved levels of job satisfaction among the employees. In this case, introduction of HPT in an organization will serve two purposes as the company gets to improve its performance while it also boost employees’ well-being and job satisfaction (Cox, 2003). Literature on HPT draws a distinction between formation of groups and creation of a team with the potential of delivering predetermined levels of productivity. This distinction depends on the formation of a team which exhibits certain characteristics that might include effective channels of communication, productive conflict, positive climate and common goals. There are many other factors including efficiency, effective leadership, decision making and problem solving, autonomy and commitment (Nelson, 2010; Chong, 2007; Guttman, 2011; Nakata and Im, 2010). These factors among others have essential roles to play in the success of a HPT. However, I selected a few factors that according to me are more important for the team. Without the team or organization at large taking care of these factors, the team is bound to fail in meeting its objectives as it only becomes a group of individuals brought together to perform a common task but each individual with a different perspectives and approaches over the same. Effective and consistent communication becomes an essential aspect of HPT especially when each member is given adequate chances to contribute to the overall output of the time. Lewis (2004) found when each team member effectively communicates there is a substantial impact on the overall effectiveness of the group as a whole. Effectiveness in communication involves openness in sharing of information while also providing an opportunity for all members to be listened and providing positive and constructive feedback on contributions made (Holmes, 2005). The importance of communication within a HPT has been proven by the study by Sampson and Clark (2011) which found such teams were composed of members who were more open to ideas presented by others as they were ready to discuss merits of such ideas before choosing to accept, rejecting or modifying them compared to members of lower performing groups. Apart from the effectiveness that is as a result of openness in communication, HPT depend the establishment of a positive climate which is the existence of a team that appreciates, recognizes the need for employee well-being while also providing them with leadership roles and a chance for further learning and development. A team operating in an organization that guarantees an environment supportive to the contribution of members is likely to be high performing (Holmes, 2005; Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Productive conflicts are also an essential aspect of HPT. This involves members being engaged in conflicts that have constructive value in the productivity of the team (Sampson and Clarke, 2011). However, productivity of conflicts can only be realized when members channel their disagreements towards narrowing differences in point of view to ensure members came up with solutions to the task at hand (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). Sampson and Clarke (2011) also supports the need for constructive conflicts in a HPT with data indicating members of such a team provided more oppositional comments to colleagues compared to members of low performing groups. The high level of differing opinions generated by members of a HPT is due to greater acceptance and value of alternative perspectives (de Vries, 2005; Salas, Burke & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In cases where the conflicts are not resolved quickly through convergence of ideas, HPT have mechanisms that enable timely identification and resolution while also being critical in minimizing chances that such conflicts will occur (Holmes, 2005). The existence of a common goal shared by members also acts as an essential part of HPT it is what provides members with direction on approaches for achieving greater productivity. Having a common goal ensures all the members are directed by a specific purpose making it easy for the members to identify desired goals methods necessary to achieve them (Holmes, 2005; Sax, 2012). Having a common goal is also necessary for members to narrow their objectives into more manageable units therefore members take a short period f time to achieve desired results. Trust in High Performance Team From the above understanding of HPT, there are a number of factors including the establishment of effective channels of communication, productive conflicts and their resolution mechanisms, positive climate and establishment of common goals to be achieved are considered as necessary for the team to achieve desired results. However, it is my view that these factors will never be established in HPT where there is no trust among the members. Each member of the team should trust that the others have the required capabilities and intensions necessary in achieving desired goals. When members of a team have established a working environment characterized by trust, adopt an objective view about the contributions made by colleagues. Productivity in HPT is a result of members having an understanding that everyone will perform the assigned tasks to their utmost level of knowledge and skills without letting the rest of the team do the hardest part of the responsibilities assigned to the team (Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002; Jackson and Joshi, 2004). As noted earlier, HPT embrace constructive conflicts which ensure members can freely criticize the ideas of others without threatening the future progression of the team. It is my belief that such levels of maturity exercised by members of a HPT is due to established trust that they share amongst themselves. Since HPT results from working together with an understanding that all members target high standards of productivity, each member will handle any arising conflict on the basis and need to have a consensus on what is the best for the group (de Vries, 2005). Therefore, when conflicts occur, members of HPT are not likely to derail from discussion of the main issues at hand and start personal attacks based on the character of other members. HPT members are more likely to drop their own perception about an issue since they trust the others to make informed judgment on the best approach when members decide to choose one among alternative ideas. The centrality of trust in achieving HPT and especially through influencing other factors necessary for the team to achieve high productivity can for instance be perceived in relation communication. The role of communication is to establish a social environment which is a necessary component in building trust among members (Nahapiet, 2009). Trust relates to open and honest communication within HPT based on the fact that it is only when people are able to articulate what they have in mind that the rest of the members will begin to understand what they have to offer to the team. Mutual trust established within the HPT works beyond the professional requirements of the responsibilities each members has in the workplace. Trust is formed through formation of closer ties between team members and is often strengthened through engagement in social activities that are not work related. Communication is therefore an essential component of HPT as it ensures members build trust in each other through constant engagements with each other which creates an understanding between them (Aubert and Kelsey, 2003). I therefore perceive trust as being an intermediate factor in linking HPT and the desired levels of productivity. This perception is based on the understanding that through communication, members of the HPT are able to strike an understanding of what is to be done and the required elements to achieve desired results (Jackson and Joshi, 2004). This understanding is the foundation under which trust is established among the members as each one knows the other has a role and is equally fit to perform such roles. The end product of such an arrangement is a high level of productivity that will satisfy all the stakeholders. Conclusion HPT have are determined based on their high levels of productivity. However, the level at which a team will perform is also depended on other factors. Among the factors that ensure HPT record the high levels of productivity are effective channels of communication, productive conflict and resolution mechanisms, positive climate and having common goals that influence the decision taken by members. This paper has established the link trust and HPT based on the perception that high productivity is as a result of members of the team trusting each other to perform their responsibility. I have also established trust as an important component in connecting the discussed factors to productivity of the team. This is achieved when for instance members establish effective communication between themselves therefore providing a ground for them to gain each other’s trust which then results in performance at their highest potential therefore resulting in high levels of productivity in the task assigned. Therefore I find trust to be an important aspect of HPT as it is only through it that members will cooperate with each other to improve the total output of the team. References Aubert, B. A., & Kelsey, B. L. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small group research, 34(5), 575-618. Brödner, P. (2007). From Taylorism to competence-based production. Ai & Society, 21(4), 497-514. Castka, P., Bamber, C., Sharp, J., Belohoubek, P. (2001). Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams. Team Performance Management 7 (7/8), 123-134. Cox, K. B. (2003). The effects of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict on team performance effectiveness and work satisfaction. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 153-163. De Vries, M. F. K. (2005). Leadership group coaching in action: The Zen of creating high performance teams. The Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 61-76. Godard, J., & Delaney, J. T. (2000). Reflections on the" high performance" paradigms implications for industrial relations as a field. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 482-502. Hasle, P., & Møller, N. (2001). The action plan against repetitive work—an industrial relation strategy for improving the working environment. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 11(2), 131-143. Holmes, T. A. (2005). Ten characteristics of a high performance work team. In ASTD, & M. Silberman (Ed.), The 2005 ASTD Team and Organisational Development Sourcebook (pp. 179-182). Alexandria: ASTD Press. Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: a multi‐attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(6), 675-702. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 187-213. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting horizons, 15(1), 87-104. Kur, E. (1996). The faces model of high performing team development. Management Development Review, 9(6), 25-35. Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management science, 50(11), 1519-1533. Nahapiet, J. 2009. Capitalizing on Connections: Social Capital and Strategic Management. In Viva Bartkus and James Davis (Eds.). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Neely, A. D., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. London: Prentice Hall Financial Times. Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles . International Journal of Management Review , 2 (4), 339-356. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education , 41, 63-97. Sax, H. C. (2012). Building high performance teams in the operating room. Surgical Clinics of North America , 15-19. Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., & Möller, K. (2004). How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness?. Journal of Business Research, 57(5), 495-506. Read More