Armstrong's View of Groups: Important Elements and Scopes of Team and Team Management - Literature review Example

 Introduction This document fundamentally discusses the concept of teams and team management in the organisational setting and the workplace. The paper will examine important elements and scopes of team and team management. This will be done by defining teams. This will be followed by a distinction of teams from groups in order to consolidate its view in human resource management literature. The paper will then go on to assess the core dynamics of teams and then discuss the important aspects of managing teams and optimising the efforts of teams individually and collectively. Armstrong's View of Groups Armstrong (2008) begins discussions of teams by putting forward the following definition: “a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach for which they hold themselves accountable”. This means that a team is made up of people who are individually and collectively accountable for the results of their outputs. Armstrong explains that the essence of teams is that they are put together to resolve a specific challenge and they interact to attain the ends that are defined for them (2008). Teams have to agree on a common purpose and work to attain it by contributing individually and collectively (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Armstrong goes further to put teams in two categories: permanent and temporal teams. In this quest, he identifies that in the organisational context, teams lie between two extremes: group and individual effort. Group – Teams – Individual To Armstrong, a popular version of a team is the top level management of an organisation. He states that “the formation of business strategy and implementing them is a team effort” (Armstrong, 2008). This means that the company itself is a team that is unified by the different components and actions of the various units. Temporal teams can include project groups that are set up to attain a given end. In both the temporal and permanent group, the unifying factor is that teams are unified by the need to attain a definite goal, which could be strategic for permanent groups and project objectives for a small group. One thing that Armstrong identifies is that the best approach to examine a team is to distinguish it from a group. This is because there are some elements of a team that are absolutely different from a group and this gives a better perspective of the features of teams. Hardingham asks a simple question that seeks to explain the fundamental difference between a team and a group: “do all the members of the group share at least one goal that can be accomplished only through the joint effort of all?” (2008: 3). In other words, a group becomes a team if there is at least a single common goal. This is similar to Armstrong's view of groups. A group is made up of two or more individuals interacting independently who have come together to achieve particular objectives independently (Odendaal and Robbins, 2009: 243). On the other hand, the essence of a group is to attain a set of common goals by working together and attaining positive synergy through coordinated effort (Odendaal and Robbins, 2009). Another area of concern that Armstrong puts forward is the aspect of team building. “Team building interventions can deal with permanent work teams or those set up to work for certain projects or solve particular problems” (Armstrong, 2008). This means that team building or team dynamics elements are important and they are a little universal in nature. This is because they can be applied to the wider workplace and also for project teams. The elements of good team dynamics include five core elements which Armstrong presents, which are: 1. Problem solving: there should be a mechanism through which problems and issues can be resolved in the group. This would help to resolve issues and prevent tensions and troubles. 2. Decision making: there is the need for a system through which collective decision making can be implemented. This allows the members of the team to work without feeling tensed up or excluded. 3. Interpersonal relationships: This refers to the need for people to interact with each other and get to express themselves and relate in a way and manner that would encourage inclusion and efforts in the team. This enables the team to attain results. 4. Diagnosis and Discussion of Issues: There should be a way through which the diverse members of the team can resolve issues and get to address things throughout the operation of the team. This will be one of the building blocks of the team and will help promote efficiency in the team. 5. Joint consideration of action to improve effectiveness: Differences in issues must be resolved through consensus. This means that there must be a system through which action can be taken to resolve friction and promote the cohesion and cooperation of the different members of the team. In order to succeed, a team needs to spend a lot of time to explore, shape and agree on things in order to work to collectively attain goals (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). This will enable the members of the team to align themselves with each other and attain the ends of the team. “Team building involves the breaking down of traditional hierarchies and replacing them with new once based on a given end” (Armstrong, 2008). “Team members are from different cultures and disciplines, hence there is the need for the building of task oriented relationships in order to attain the results” (Biscoe et al, 2012). This means that there is the need for the differences and unique views of the members of a team to be re-aligned in order to promote the smooth operation of the team. Belbin's Views on Teams Belbin, being an authority in the field of teams and team performance begins her presentation by identifying the history of teams. She identifies that “endure from surviving indigenous peoples and suggest a pattern of social behaviour marked by its elemental, spontaneous and sharing of characters” (Belbin, 2010: 2). This means that to her, teams were involved in the solving of problems from ancient societies then it came up to the need to form teams to become a distinct part of armies. These different roles for the attainment of specific results became popular with urbanisation where skilled labour and work became the norm. To Belbin, the best approach for examining teamwork and ensuring that teams work together to attain optimal results is in the area of balance of characters in the group. Scholtes et al (2010) identify three main components of team dynamics which include personal identity, relationship with team members and connection with the organisation. In attaining this end, Belbin famously presents eight important roles that need to balance in order to attain a given set of results. Zamora, classifies the eight roles in three main categories which define the important elements that must work together to attain high team performance and results: 1. Mental Roles: Plant, Monitor and Specialist. 2. Social Roles: Resource Investigator, Coordinator and Teamworker 3. Action Roles: Shaper, Implementer and Completer. These three classes must be in a given team in order to ensure optimum results and the best solutions. However, there are some practical considerations in making them work together. Schwalbe suggests that teams must also go through the dynamics that Tuckman suggests. This include forming, storming, norming and performing (Schwalbe, 2009). These four steps enable the team members to familiarize themselves and through this, players of all the eight roles will emerge and the group can attain the best results. Personal identity involves things that influences the way a person sees himself in relation to the group (Scholtes et al, 2010). Similarities “A team is a group of employees who work together to resolve a common problem” (Daft and Marcic, 2010: 569). This has turned out to be the universal definition of teams. Belbin defines a team as a set of work roles that are divided up and assigned to individual team members who work to attain the common goal of the team (1993). Teams are often multi-skilled and involve people with different expertises (Armstrong, 2008). To this end, the two authors have a common definition of teams and this is connected to the attainment of goals and definite objectives. Katzenbach and Smith on the other hand, identifies a group as a collection of people who work in the same place or area whilst a team have a common purpose and a common goal and although they might be scattered on different continent, they work to give individual contributions to attain the common goal (1993). Philips and Gully (2010) identify that a team is made up of important elements of cohesion to promote the attainment of the goals. The writers reviewed both agree that teams are made up of people from diverse backgrounds who work together to attain a common goal. Due to this, there is the need for some cohesion tools and elements that will work together to attain the end in mind. Differences The two authors reviewed seem to have fundamental differences in their focus on how to optimise the performance of a group. Belbin focuses on qualitative matters relating to character as a means of promoting group cohesion whilst Armstrong focuses on the structural elements of group like communication and other things. As a matter of fact, there are different approaches to promoting team cohesion. Aswathappa and Dash identify adaptation, situational intervention, managerial intervention and exit as the best way of dealing with team cohesion obstacles (2007). Elleithy identifies that proper motivation and team learning is the way of promoting team performance (2008). Another approach is to focus on communication and leadership (Duke Education Corporation, 2011). All these approaches are similar to Armstrong's view on the matter. Armstrong (2011) identifies that it is good to create clear goals and priorities. Also, there is the need to promote proper work allocation, cohesion, group management capability, leadership quality and resource availability. This would help to attain results and improve performance. Clear goals and cohesion will eliminate ambiguity and lay the framework for work to be done and completed. Leadership and other organisational capabilities in team will help to steer the group and eliminate obstacles and differences in the operation of the group. These are based on structural matters. However, Belbin's primary focus is on how to get the individual members to work together to promote personal character connection and link up. This is based on internal and characteristic matters that are significant in promoting the dynamics. Her effort to promote the important approaches suggests that she has done in-depth specialised research in this area and this has led to important findings about some fundamental elements and aspects of team performance. Conclusion The findings of this research indicates that both writers agree that the fundamental essence of a team includes a group working together to attain a given end. The end is specific and expressly stated. A team is an important element of organisations and both authors appreciate this point. Armstrong appreciates that teamwork is the only clearcut method of getting organisations to work and this leads to permanent teams like the management of an organisation and temporal teams like project teams. Belbin on the other hand focuses on character and the cohesion of different character as the main essence of teams. Thus, Armstrong views teams from an organisational context whilst Belbin looks at the internal elements of teams that are based on character and essential elements meant to make a team work together to attain the objectives at hand. Armstrong is more interested in the structural and organisational elements of groups and how they work together to impact on organisations. In this quest, Armstrong concedes that there are structural elements like communication, problem solving and international considerations that must be examined to enhance team cohesion and team performance. Belbin on the other hand advocates for the presence of important players in a team who will play various goals to attain the goals of the group. This will help the group to work together to attain the best goals. References Armstrong, M. (2008) Strategic Human Resource Management: A Guide to Action London: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M. (2011) How to Manage People London: Kogan Page. Aswathappa, S. and Dash, K. (2007) International Human Resource Management Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill. Belbin, M. (1993) Team Roles at Work London: Elsevier Publications. Belbin, R. M. (2010) Team Roles at Work London: Routledge Biscoe, D., Schuler, R. and Tarique, I. (2012) International Human Resource Management London: CRC Press. Blumberg, H, Kent, M. V., Hare, P. A. and Davies, M. F. (2011) Small Group Research London: Springer. Daft, R. L. and Marcic, D. (2010) Understanding Management Mason, OH: Cengage Duke Corporation Education (2011) Building Effective Teams New York: Kaplan Publishing. Elliethy, K. (2008) Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Systems London: Springer. Hardingham, A. (2008) Working in Teams London: CIPD Publications Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization Boston: Harvard Business School. Litley, R. (2012) Theory and Research for Academic Nurse Educators London: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Odendaal, G. R. and Robbins, S. P. (2009) Organisational Behaviour Cape Town: Pearson South Africa. Phillips, J. M. and Gully, S. M. (2010) Organizational Behaviour: Tools for Success Mason, OH: Cengage. Schwalbe, K. (2009) Information Technology Project Management Mason, OH: Cengage Scholtes, PP. R., Joiner, B. L. and Striebel, B. J. (2010) The Team Handbook, Madison, WC: Oriel Inc. Zamora, R. C. (2010) Complexity: A Model of Collaboration and Complexity for Management London: Lulu Read More