Five Key Factors of Team Effectiveness - Essay Example

Running Head: Leadership: Effective team, Lead within the boundaries Leadership: Effective team, Lead within the boundaries of the writer] [Name of the institution] Leadership: Effective team, Lead within the boundaries Introduction A person can not be truly evaluated as an individual, but as a team member. His strengths and weaknesses as a team member play an important role in team achievements. This paper will identify strengths and weaknesses of a team member for the potential growth of his professional development. In today's business environment, team has been generally considered as a valuable formula for work organization. As Tarricone and Luca mentioned (2002), nowadays employers pay special and consistent attention to collaboration and teamwork, viewing them as 'a critical skill, essential in almost all working environments.' There is research dividing team into different types (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990); however, it will not be the case here. This article will firstly give brief explanation of team and teamwork, and try to find out some key conditions of developing effective team through collating early literature. The focus will be in the scope of human resource management even though much research discussed team combining consideration of organizations and leadership etc. The characteristics of effective team will be assessed and continually some issues will be arisen and viewed as challenges for managers examining. Debates also arise in the parts of the autonomy and reward. Finally the conclusion will mention the required change in the managers' roles in a changing environment. Teamwork A team is a group of people assigned a task or a set of tasks to accomplish and often 'granted autonomy over how to accomplish their assignment' (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Harris and Harris define teamwork as 'a work group or unit with a common purpose through which members develop mutual relationships for the achievement of goals/tasks' (Tarricone & Luca, 2002). Combining the concept of autonomy, the definition of teamwork is chosen here for providing a simple, conceptual notion to discuss work teams with various purposes and types in business environment context. Necessary conditions for effective team-working Since team-working has been widely applied in workplace the attributes of effective team-working has become an important and popular issue. Study has identified effective teamwork as one of the underlying elements of businesses with high performance. In other words, successful corporations 'rely on teamwork as an essential basis for everyday operations (Tarricone & Luca, 2002).' Therefore, the characteristics of effective team-working have been drawn and listed in tremendous amount of research. The conditions included in this article are listed and discussed next. 1. Mission clarity Some studies list the mission clarity as one of the necessary conditions (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990; Gustafson & Kleiner, 1994; Natale, Libertella & Rothschild, 1995; Borrelli, Cable & Higgs, 1995; ) or the most important one (Davis & Scase, 2000) while discussing effective team. Mission clarity means all team members fully and clearly perceive the purpose, goal and task. Purpose is that team members need to know why they are gathered to form a team, which means team formation (Gustafson & Kleiner, 1994). Goal is the target which members need to achieve, and it includes the match of short-term objectives and long-term strategies. Task contains deciding what should be done and assigning work. 2. Rewards and recognition Rewards occur while team tasks or goals are accomplished and the achievement appeals to be significant for the team or organization. Rewards may contain praise for team success, pay, time off and promotion etc. These outcomes are 'bestowed by people other than group members', and they 'do not include any benefits derived from within the group.'(Shea & Guzzo, 1987) Recognition is that 'individual contributions to the team and team contributions to the company are fairly acknowledged and valued.'(Borrelli, Cable & Higgs, 1995) Some studies have found positive correlation between performance and incentive (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990). The debate of counterproductive effect of reward is discussed in the part of equity of distribution. 3. Autonomy Teams are usually given autonomy over how to accomplish their tasks or reach their goals. Autonomy can be described to three levels according to how much autonomy granted. The first one is Semi-autonomous groups, which are supervisor-led, which means team members only have partial or less control. The second one is self-regulating or self-managing groups having the right of electing their leaders and controlling the distribution of their labor. The final one is self-designing teams, which 'have authority over their definitions as work units and external relations.' (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990) 4. Performance feedback Performance feedback function allows team members to use feedback information to evaluate and improve their performance. There are three main effects of performance feedback. First of all, effective team gets regular feedback from either member within the team or external sources. Secondly, members of such a team give each other valuable or constructive evaluation and suggestions about each performance. Finally, these teams do apply the feedback to improve their productivity, product or service quality or performance (Davis & Scase, 2000). And a study showed increased product quality but decreased satisfaction in sewing machine operator groups after an introduction of specific goals with systematic feedback was given (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990). 5. Cooperation and interdependence It has been confirmed that an effective team shows high cohesion and has cooperative members (Davis & Scase, 2000), and a team also relies on interdependence to reinforce cooperation enabling members to work as a unit. Sundstorm, Meuse and Futrell (1990) also point out that cohesion is a crucial factor of team-working effectiveness. Explained by Davis and Scase (2000), a noticeable example of the importance of cooperation may be a team whose goal is to work out a strategic plan. A successful strategic plan is one that functions, which means it is usually formed by a group of people because of the demand of differential views. It incorporates various points of view and finally is developed through sifting and accepted by members. Interdependence includes the degree of task-driven interaction amongst team members (Shea & Guzzo, 1987). Communication (Gustafson & Kleiner, 1994) is usually mentioned and regarded as one course in reinforcing either cooperation (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990) or interdependence (Tarricone & Luca, 2002). The degree of cooperation and interdependence decides what employees will be- members of close team-working or individuals with optimized individual work unit performance. A caveat arise here is that cooperation and interdependence do not necessarily mean conflicts never occur (Davis & Scase, 2000). One finally attention must be drawn here is that no single condition is sufficient to make effective team-working. It is rather the combination of all these conditions to create an effective team then result in high performance (Borrelli, Cable & Higgs, 1995; Davis & Scase, 2000). Challenges to managers Leadership in a team may be worth paying much attention because a team involves the variety of roles of team members and dynamic process of managing. Namely, the challenges facing team leaders are team management, the equity of distribution of tasks and rewards, and finally the new arising issue in global context-multicultural workforce. 1. Managing team Team management or team leadership itself is a crucial challenge for managers, including the control over discretion and the functions team leaders have. Although it has been generally recognized that teams are usually self-governing, it does cause some problems which are noticed and studied. In the first place, being granted autonomy, team members might have inappropriate expectation of the whole way in which the team works and even team mission (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Firstly, self- governing team members generally think that the work they are assigned is harder than casual one and therefore they deserve more rewards. Moreover, being granted autonomy, team members have freedom to decide how they accomplish their tasks, which usually whets their desire or interests for more control over what mission assigned to them. In brief, individuals in such a circumstance are highly likely to think they deserve more compensation, and resistance and subversion from team leaders can cause problems because granting autonomy to low-echelon employees can adversely affect these leaders who used to control them. Secondly, the functions team leaders have or the roles they play are changing. As self-management becomes trend, it is to be expected that leadership may be equally shared by its members. Also, Natale, Libertella and Rothschild (1995) claim that a traditional view which a 'manager's main responsibility is to control workers' should be replaced with a now focus on 'encouraging employee initiative' and that it is a 'complicated and difficult' process. However, Baron and Kreps (1999) explain that self-managing is not the case of laissez faire, i.e. managers still keep the responsibility for ensuring equal distribution of tasks. Davis and Scase (2000) think that there are four stages of group development and the leader's style changes when necessary to satisfy group. In stage one, members regard manager as the source of member safety and reward. In stage two, members start to 'challenge manager's authority and control' but he/she should still remain directive. In stage three, members recognize the territory of the leader's power. Finally, an effective leader will be functioning like an expert. 2. Equity of distribution of task and reward It has been claimed that each member must agree with and accept work and reward/punishment distribution (Davis & Scase, 2000). In other words, internal equity must be achieved. Social ties, i.e. interaction among members, could be a strong aid and also be harmful to team unity if equal allocating reward can not be reached (Baron & Kreps, 1999). An example given by Shea and Guzzo (1987) explains counterproductive behavior could appeal if interaction between members is intensive and the outcome is important but with reward competitively allocated, i.e. members may inhibit another's performance either by sabotaging or just not be cooperative. 3. Multicultural workforce/changing environment According to Natale, Libertella and Rothschild (1995), 60% of the US workforce will be comprised of women and minorities by 2000, and it requires attention to look for new ways to management and supervision. And they claim that study has found cultural diversity can promote creativity, overcome group-think and then to better decision-making, which forces workers to take a different look at things. Gustafson & Kleiner (1994) also mention that a view of global level is required for international management team to tackle problems. In addition, for working effectively in this changing environment or virtual team (Bal & Foster, 2000), people participate in leadership at every level is needed (Pulley & Sessa, 2001). Finally, some research mention two factors needed for considering team management-team size and diversity of members and resources required. Sundstorm, Meuse and Futrell (1990) collated literature and found that a consistent guideline shows team size must be the smallest possible number of people who can do the task, which is supported by Davis and Scase (2000). But the necessity of heterogeneity or homogeneity of team members remains disunited (Baron & Kreps, 1999). As for resources such as time (Davis & Scase, 2000) and demonstrated support of key organizational managers (Shea & Guzzo, 1987), research has mentioned the need of them as well. Conclusion Due to the differences of attributes and focus between human resource management and other fields, unlike literature discussing team by using ecological approach (Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990) or forming structures (Shea & Guzzo, 1987; Sundstorm, Meuse & Futrell, 1990), this article concentrated on the necessary conditions for effective teamwork and the challenges facing managers from the viewpoint of human resource management. Basically, there are five key factors to team effectiveness, and they are mission clarity, rewards and recognition, autonomy, performance feedback, cooperation and interdependence. In this changing environment and global business context, some issues might become or have been the challenges facing managers/team leaders. These include team management and the required new leadership paradigm, equity of distribution of task and reward/punishment, and multicultural workforce and changing environment. The idea drawn and worth paying attention is that these key attributes should be satisfied to develop effective teams and for managers themselves, they will transform traditional roles into facilitators, consultants, coordinators using participative leadership style for developing employee competence. References Borrelli, G., Cable, J. and Higgs, M. (1995), 'What Makes Teams Work Better', Team Performance Management, 1, 3, 28-34. Bal, J. and Foster, P. (2000), 'Managing the Virtual Team and Controlling Effectiveness', International Journal of Production Research, 38, 17, 4019-4032. Baron, J. N., and Kreps, D. M. (1999), Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Davis, H. and Scase, R. (2000), Managing Creativity, Buckingham: Open University Press. Gustafson, K. and Kleiner, B. H. (1994), 'New Development in Team Building', Industrial and Commercial Training, 26, 9, 17-22. Natale, S. M., Libertella, A. F. & Rothschild, B. (1995), 'Team Performance Management', Team Performance Management, 1, 2, 6-13. Pulley, M. L. and Sessa, V. I. (2001), 'E-leadership: Tackling Complex Challenges', Industrial and Commercial Training, 33, 6, 225-229. Sundstorm, E., Meuse, K. P. D., and Futrell, D. (1990), 'Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness', American Psychologist, 45, 2, 120-133. Shea, G. P. and Guzzo, R. A. (1987), 'Group Effectiveness: What Really Matters', Sloan Management Review, 28, 3, 25-31. Tarricone, P. and Luca, J (2002), 'Employees, Teamwork and Social Interdependence- A Formula for Successful Business', Team Performance Management, 8, 3, 54-59. Read More