Teams Are Seen as a Necessary Condition in the Contemporary Organisation but Are They Effective - Essay Example

Teams Are Seen as a Necessary Condition in the Contemporary Organisation, but Are They Effective? Introduction The modern concepts of teams are those groups of individuals that work toward achieving a common purpose through a series of collaborations, supportive leadership focus, and proper distribution of work and individual job roles. Teams are effective when they reach a specific goal, whether this is in relation to complicated tasks such as technology implementation or lesser scenarios such as improving a single organisational process. Whatever the goal or long-term strategy desired as an outcome, teams improve competitive performance in diverse local and international markets and serve to better unify the organisational culture. What is important to identify is whether teams are effective, which can only be accomplished by examining theoretical perspectives on the role of job embeddedness, human psychology factors, the role of leaders in guiding team roles and cohesion, and the political systems that exist within different organisational structures in different industries. The approach to identifying whether teams can be considered effective is consultation with secondary literature involving research studies or expert opinion on what drives failures in teams and the actions necessary to correct problems that occur in all stages of team-building. What has been learned through this effort is important in organisational studies as it provides a broader viewpoint about the nature of teams and how individuals function within group environments so that future team-building exercises can be considered properly, taking into account human factors, environmental factors and how leaders should structure their guiding focus and procedures. Job embeddedness and human capital development Are teams effective in today’s complex business environments? To answer this question successfully, the role of people in teams must be identified. There is a concept in team functioning known as job embeddedness, which is the strength of the linkages between individual job roles and others within the team group (Chen, Chou & Wang 2010). Job embeddedness deals with issues of socialisation and how others manage to establish both interpersonal relationships and their ability to function well in a collaborative environment. Much of whether job embeddedness is important to team development and success deals with organisational factors related to culture and the organisational structure that guides the business environment. It was discovered through research that organisational open-mindedness and commitment through all levels is directly related to positive job embeddedness, the ability to function with strong interpersonal skills and collaboration (Chen, et al.). For example, a business may have a system in which most decision making is considered and distributed from executive or mid-level management positions whereby lower-level workers are expected to simply comply with these directives. Such a structure provides workers with less autonomy in their job roles, much less visibility as suggestors regarding new policy and procedural development and has the potential of sending the message that workers are considered much less crucial to business success than senior-level leaders. “In the most effective teams, all members feel safe enough to express their considerations about work content openly and candidly” (Kislik 2009, 45). This is something that would not be present in an organisational structure with high level controls and compliance measures that trickle downward from executive positions. However, such open discussion is necessary in order for a team to be considered effective and able to meet strategic intentions. The very nature of a team is for open collaboration, especially when the goal involves complex variables that lead to major changes within the enterprise. This might be experienced in a team environment that requires many members to launch a new software or technology project or considerably change operational processes such as production lines or inventory management. Cultures that do not provide, as a structural aspect and business norm, this type of free exchange as common business practice may have a difficult time developing a new method of doing things that include more authority and responsibility for making decisions. It is unrealistic to believe that a team environment that relies on knowledge management ideals and ongoing exchange of technical expertise would find success in open and candid discussion if these individuals were not used to operating in this fashion. There might be a need to create a preliminary assessment process, much like a needs analysis, in order to determine whether open collaboration is possible in a business culture that does not support this type of free thinking. This assessment is supported by Polychroniou (2009) who offers that in order to be successful in collaborative environments, there must be supervision that uses motivational strategies, empathy and social skills as part of a transformational leadership design. Transformational managers are visionary and build trust through exhibition of specific behaviours related to socialisation and are able to gain support through more progressive and empowering strategies. Some businesses, by design, are not able to offer these systems due to the nature by which the organisation must be structured in their specific market environment. Managers must have what is referred to as emotional intelligence, a process by which the leader understands themselves at the emotional level and is able to look for cues within team members to help them better relate with group members. It deals with issues of empathy and motivational strategies (Polychroniou). Teams can only be effective if there is a direct involvement from those responsible for supervising the group that works to shed organisational structure elements found in rigid, controlling environments. This requires a transformational leader with all of the capabilities to support and encourage as a primary step. Without these factors, the team will surely fail and not meet end results as expected. Managers that have a high emotional intelligence are intrinsically motivated and are able to draw out these characteristics in team members (Othman, Abdullah & Ahmad 2009). These leaders will suppress their negative feelings to make them less transparent to others, which would be highly important in the forming and storming stages where uncertainty is often present and different tensions and cliques tend to form between the in group and the out group. A quality leader with high emotional intelligence looks for cues in others, either through active listening or through body language assessment, to determine where conflicts might be occurring and then work towards regulating these through positive interpersonal skills development exercises. A team can only function effectively if the leader understands what is driving the root of conflict and confusion and then work as a transformational leader to build a more collaborative effort by encouraging social development in team members. Further, in a team environment, there is often a knowledge management focus that reinforces the importance of working together and freely exchanging information, as was proposed by Kislik. There are periods in team projects where ideas and concepts about how to move forward or how to approach the goals must be communicated between group members. During this interactive phase, the concept known as stream of consciousness is an important element in determining whether a team can be effective. This is all of the different thoughts and emotions that a person has while they are interacting with other team members. “The material here is raw, unedited and uncensored, which may include judgmental and hostile content”, but is generally kept transparent by most members of a team (Hultman & Hultman 2008, 12). Team environments, especially during the early phases of its development, experiences conflict as people grow accustomed to working alongside people with diverse character and personality, or technical, profiles. As the manager works to create a more open environment, it is common that some individuals will lose their selective judgment and openly let their stream of consciousness come to the surface. During these periods of frustration and conflict, a team member might blurt out their dissatisfaction in a way that would not be considered acceptable based on moral or political rules that exist in the organisational culture. When this occurs, these people are referred to as “losing it” and it can lead to feelings of awkwardness that will erode positive future discussion (Hultman & Hultman). This particular concept known as stream of consciousness was discussed since it deals with the internal thought processes that most individuals in team projects experience. It is, again, linked to the concept of organisational controls that are commonly found in businesses that do not necessarily rely on the judgment and opinion of lower-level workers when new policies or processes are put into place by executive managers. People, to satisfy cultural beliefs, tend to repress these thoughts so as not to go against the strong political systems that exist in businesses with these organisational structures. Leaders with high emotional intelligence should recognise when these characteristics are about to boil to the surface and attempt to diffuse conflict or animosity before it begins. This reinforces the importance of having a strong leader with transformational skills that can create an environment where streams of consciousness are not suppressed, but can be encouraged through motivational practices even if they are targeted at individuals rather than the whole group. Transformational leadership design would be an important element in making sure a team is successful, regardless of the type of structure or the difficulties that might arise as people are confused when making decisions since they are not used to it as a cultural regularity. Attitude, feedback and rewards systems In order for a team to develop effectively, according to Bushe & Coetzer (2007), members must have a desire to be a part of the team. This is a foundational part of ensuring commitment and cohesion. In the early developmental stages, members are entering the team with pre-set identities within the organisation and related to the unique personality profile, generally looking to have their role in the group validated by others (Bushe & Coetzer). Social identity theory is important in understanding these social dynamics and attitude issues that arise in the early team formation stages since behaviour is directly related to desire and motivation to be involved with the group. There is an internal characteristic that most people share in terms of finding affiliation through positive feedback from peers and some members of the group are dependent on these reinforcements. There are also people who enter teams, at the individual level, for the sake of meeting their own personal goals and agenda, putting these needs first over that of the group and its interpersonal development (Bushe & Coetzer). These individuals are not compliant with the needs of the broader group and it creates conflict at many levels. The ultimate learning lesson as to whether teams can be effective is directly related to the type of personality construct each member carries, whether they actually want to be a part of the team, and whether they have the emotional intelligence to sacrifice their personal needs in favour of meeting project goals. Though these might be able to be regulated by leaders in the group, it speaks to the importance of fully understanding the type of members that are invited to participate in group functions in the earliest stages of group formation. Attitude seems to be everything in order to have collaboration and group success. Most groups have a difficulty with creating a positive feedback cycle, that causes problems with solving complicated problems and managing relationships (Albert & Fetzer 2005). Feedback deals with the style of communications from the leader and group members regarding many different factors, usually related to idea generation and performance. Transformational leaders consider feedback as one of the most important elements in a more flexible organisational structure where open communication is important to achieve the team goals. The difficulties in feedback show a problem with communications. Feedback is also a dimension of trust-building that is important for teams to function effectively. “Trust in leaders is particularly important for effective functioning in teams where tasks are complex, require interdependence and information sharing” (Gillespie & Mann 2004, 588). This once again shows the importance of their being a transformational leader within the group that is able to guide others’ behaviours using a set of self-regulating activities; a form of practice what is preached method in leadership. Trust is necessary between the leader and the group as well as between individual group members and this is not something that looks to occur without direct effort on behalf of the manager, primarily, and all group members. If the attitude exists in the group that the individual does not want to be a part of the team in the first place, trust in their commitment and dedication is going to be a missing element and lead to poor-performance in the group. Trust acts as the foundation for effective communications, employee motivation and the effort that people will voluntarily put into their work (Heathfield 2009). There is also a need for some sort of incentive to fully commit to achieving team goals. Leadership with a high level of desire for control is referred to as “old rugged individualism” that does not focus on cooperation but on maintaining a command-control model of management (Natale, Sora & Kavalipurapu 2004, 45). Instead, a flexible leader in these groups should establish a form of rewards and recognition that is linked directly to individual accomplishment if they hope to gain commitment. As with other situations, rewards act as an incentive to achieve goals and also breaks away from the high command structures that often drive businesses with central decision-making policies at the executive level. In order for a team to be considered effective, removal of these controls and a system to recognize worker accomplishment must be present. Most of whether or not it can be said a team is effective really does involve leadership principles. The transformational leader sees opportunities and creates deeper assumptions, opens up the floor for new ideas, creates vision, ignites growth in others, and inspires with new behaviours (Adams & Adams 2009). The need for effective team leadership appears to be the main element necessary to avoid conflict and achieve positive relationships in the group environment. Conclusion The relationship between job embeddedness, organisational structure, and leadership skills and emotional intelligence are definitely linked together and very necessary to be present in order for a team to thrive successfully and be considered effective. There are many needs associated with social dimensions related to trust-building and free exchanges of knowledge without generating conflict that comes from personality factors or attitude regarding actually being a part of the team. There is a need for a manager or leader that can recognize these symptoms in advance and use their own strategies to encourage, including changing their own behaviours, in order to gain commitment. The question as to whether teams are effective has been answered: yes, so long as there is quality leadership and the ability to set up positive group feedback and build motivation. Some of these come from within the group member, whilst others are strongly dependent on specific, individualized personality factors. Teams can only be successful if there is quality leadership with a transformational focus, group members with high emotional intelligence, and strong emphasis on human capital development. References Adams, W. & Adams, C. (2009) Transform or reform?, Leadership Excellence. 26, 11, p.17. Albert, S. & Fetzer, R. (2005). Smart community networks: self-directed team effectiveness in action, Team Performance Management. 11, 5/6, pp.144-157. Bushe, G. & Coetzer, G. (2007) Group development and team effectiveness: using cognitive representations to measure group development and predict task performance and group viability, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 43, 2, pp.184-208. Chen, J., Chou, T. & Wang, T. (2010) The organisational context, job embeddedness, and effectiveness of managing knowledge work teams, Journal of Applied Business Research. 26, 5, pp.19-28. Gillespie, N. & Mann, L. (2004) Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust, Journal of Managerial Psychology. 19, 6, p.588. Heathfield, S. (2009) [internet] Trust rules: the most important secret about trust. [accessed 12.11.2010] [available at http://humanresources.about.com/od/workrelationship/a/trust_rules.htm] Hultman, K. & Hultman, J. (2008) Deep teams: Leveraging the implicit organization, Organization Development Journal. 26, 3, pp.11-23. Kislik, L. (2009) Fostering teamwork in tough times, Multichannel Merchant. 26, 10, p.45. Natale, S., Sora, S. & Kavalipurapu, S. (2004) Leadership in teams: managerial responses, Team Performance Management. 10, 3/4, p.45. Othman, A., Abdullah, H. & Ahmad, J. (2009) The influence of work motivation on emotional intelligence and team effectiveness, Vision. 13, 4, pp.1-14. Polychroniou, P.V. (2009) Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership of supervisors; the impact on team effectiveness, Team Performance Management. 15, 7/8, p.343. Read More