The Advantages and Effectiveness of Group and Team Performance - Essay Example

Drawing on personal experience and theories, prepare a detailed argument to a sceptical audience justifying the advantages and effectiveness of groupand team performance Working in a group or as part of a team can often be regarded as a recipe for disaster. Disagreement, personality clashes and conflicting ways of approaching the task in hand can all be cited as reasons why group work is not successful. However, if these issues are overcome, or ideally avoided completely, team work can be highly effective, holding many advantages over working individually. This essay will outline how teams can be more productive and successful than individuals and sets out to convince even the most sceptical audience that team work really is best. A group can be defined as ‘any number of people who interact with each other, are psychologically aware of each other, perceive themselves to be a group, and purposefully interact towards the achievement of particular goals or aim’. (Rollinson & Broadfield, 2008: 305) This is the accepted definition of a group which will be used throughout this paper. From this definition it can be seen, as Rollinson and Broadfield point out, that the group will necessarily be small, it does not include the coincidental gathering of people and the goals of the group are formed within it and may not necessarily correspond with the goals which the organization in which the group functions places upon it. The main advantage to working as part of a team is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Each member of a team brings their own unique skills and talents and so there is a large pool of resources from which to draw. If harnessed in the right way, this can be a formidable force and potentially far more successful than the work of an individual alone. A sceptic might argue that these different ideas and approaches can lead to conflict, and this is certainly a risk which must be seriously considered when putting together a team. However, by choosing team members which compliment each other and managing the group successfully, these pit falls can be avoided. Rollinson and Broadfield (2008) argue that the key to the success of a group, and the way to avoid the potential issues mentioned above, is cohesion, so that each member works for the good of the group. They note that cohesion tends to be greater in mature groups. If the group can overcome the initial stages of forming and storming, it is likely that it will achieve long-term cohesion in the norming and performing stages. They note that cohesive groups are more productive, more dedicated and tend to suffer less from issues such as absenteeism. However, they also warn that cohesive groups can in turn create their own set of problems. The most prevalent of these is impaired decision making, due to the ‘groupthink effect’ (p. 425) in which individuals renounce their own decision making capacities in favour of the group will. This can often lead to slower and less dynamic decision making. A case study which demonstrates this is the Asch experiment, which showed that when all the other group members declare a false answer, up to one third of people in the group will agree with the false answer, knowing it to be wrong. Once a cohesive group has been formed, it is important for it to have successful role structures. While the group is being formed, breakdowns can occur due to expected or perceived role problems, where there is some conflict between the ‘role sender’ and the ‘role occupant’. (Rollinson & Broadfield, p.320) However once the roles within a group have been established the group is likely to function extremely well, due to member flexibility which will allow for some slight changes or shifts in the roles of each member. It is only if a new group member is introduced or the roles are significantly realigned from outside the group that issues are likely to occur which will affect the productivity of the group. A cohesive group with well defined role structure is therefore likely to be an extremely productive force within a company. There are many reasons why teams are formed within companies, and indeed Mullins (2007) explores some of these factors in order to explain why groups and teams can be preferable to individual endeavour. The first reason she cites is that ‘certain tasks can be performed only through the combined efforts of a number of individuals working together.’ (p. 306) Organisations often have very difficult and complex problems to solve. If the solution is not easy to find, a group effort is needed to come up with a solution. Harnessing the creativity of a number of people is far more likely to be successful than leaving the problem to one person, who is likely to take longer to find the solution and may not come up with a dynamic response to the problem. The second reason which Mullins cites for group formation is ‘collusion between member’s. (p.306) People in a group are able to organise their tasks so that they have a better working environment than they would have if they were left to work alone. Unpopular tasks can be delegated and rotated so that each member does not have to do them so often and roles can be slightly modified and exchanged so that the work is distributed more fairly or more productively amongst the group. This allows the group to play to its strengths and reduced member dissatisfaction. Having this flexibility allows each team member to be creative, which in turn provides them with greater job satisfaction. The third advantage of group work which Mullins mentions is ‘companionship and a source of mutual understanding and support from colleagues’. (p.306) Beyond merely completing the job role, the group can actually act as a support network for each member within it. An individual is more likely to be plagued by depression than someone working in a productive and successful team. A sceptic could argue that this support network can also turn hostile, subjecting the member to worse conditions than if they were working alone and this can certainly be true. However, by intervening to prevent such harassment, a team can be a real aid to employee satisfaction. Associated with this point is the fact that a team can provide ‘the individual with a sense of belonging’. (p.306) A person is more likely to feel part of a company if they work in a team rather than working alone, since the interaction helps to build a sense of belonging The team also helps to establish ‘guidelines on generally acceptable behaviour’. (p.306) The group helps to take the ambiguity out of company rules, since things such as dress code can be interpreted in different ways. The general trend of the group helps to clarify what is acceptable dress and what is not. A sceptic would argue that such group normalisation means that the group can also work to resist management demands, such as increased out put, by collaborating. However, conversely, when the group respects the norms of the company, people who break the rules can be more easily disciplined since the majority who respect them makes it clear that they have been broken. Finally the group can offer ‘protection for its membership’. (p.306) The team members can unite against external pressures on, or threats to, the balance of their team. This means the individuals are stronger united than alone, which can lead to greater job satisfaction and happiness in the work place. Mullins is keen to point out that group work has its downsides, such as more time spent talking to other member than working, and group hostility to other groups. However she maintains that if the group manager knows the reasons for the formation of the group listed above, which work to the benefit of the company, they can foresee and avoid the potential downsides to group work. However, a team is only as strong as the tasks it performs. Buchanan and Huczynski (2007) describe and explain the various tasks which teams are required to perform and the ways in which their success can be measured and ensured. The function of tasks within a group is very different to that of an individual, since by working alone the individual completes the entire task from start to finish. Within a group, the task is often shared and divided, and certainly each individual task contributes to a bigger group task. Managing the completion of tasks in a group is therefore essential to its success. The first type of task which Buchanan and Huczynski identify is the ‘additive task’. (p. 284). In this type of task, all the individual members have the same task to complete and their mini-tasks are combined to complete the overall group task. The group members are not interdependent but as long as all workers contribute equally, the group will perform better than the same number of individuals working alone. The case study cited to support this is the Relay assembly experiments. Women were set the task of assembling telephone relays individually in separate rooms, having previously assembled them in the same room. The researchers found that productivity was higher when the women were working in the same room, as a group, rather than individually. It is clear from this case study, therefore, that in spite of the fear of talking and reduced production, in fact groups can be more productive than individuals because the team members constantly motivate each other. The next type of task cited is the ‘conjunctive task’. (p.284) In this type of task, group members’ performances are interdependent. Therefore, the group will only be as successful as its weakest member. In creating this type of group, therefore, it is essential to ensure that all members are equally capable, otherwise resentment within the group can easily develop. The example given by Buchanan and Huczynski is the completing of a group project at university. For the project to be successful the member who researches the information, the member who writes the report and the member who presents the findings must all complete their tasks, otherwise the overall group task fails. This type of group can be argued by sceptics to be potentially very unproductive and divisive and it is indeed for this reason that all members must be equally strong. The ability of the team members to come to agreement is also essential. Buchanan and Huczynski cite the Boston Consulting Group who observed that the French Olympic relay team won, even thought their individual runners did not have the fastest times. This was because they decided to conserve a little energy for smoother baton changes. This shows a high level of successful decision making, which is crucial for the success of this type of task. Finally, Buchanan and Huczynski identify the ‘disjunctive task’. (p.285) This task is similar to the conjunctive task in that the member of the team are highly interdependent and the completion of the group task relies on the successful completion of all individual tasks. However in the disjunctive task, the group is as strong as its strongest member. This is because the strongest member can problem solve to a certain extent, but then needs the expertise of the other group. A quiz team would be an example of a group performing a disjunctive task. Clearly the group would out perform individuals working separately, since there is a pooling of knowledge and capabilities. However, the group must trust the strongest member and in this type of group there is a higher chance of conflict, since disagreement is more likely to take place. The members work more closely together than in any of the other tasks and so this is the type of group most at risk from non-cohesion. However, it also brings the most production benefits compared to individuals working alone. It is clear, therefore, that working in a team can bring with it clear benefits in terms of increased productivity. However, it has been clear that a good team can only be created through successful management. Without an intelligent leader or manager to foresee problems, resolve conflicts and structure groups according to the strengths, skills and personalities of the people involved, it is very likely that there will (at least initially) be a high level of dissatisfaction and therefore lower output within the group. It is for this reason, therefore, that Hannagan (2002) focuses on team management and the best ways to harness the great potential of group work. In Hannagan’s discussion, he explain that teams have become a new trend in organisational structure. Previously, organisations have been structured in layers, whereby each layer reports to the one above it, in a pyramid structure with the information eventually filtering through to the senior manager via a number of middle managers. This has the advantage that different tasks can be delegated to different levels. However he explains (p. 288) that ‘with the move towards flexible organisations and delayering, the trend is more likely to be in establishing ‘teams’...reporting directly to the senior manager.’ The structuring of an organisation into teams means that there is a more direct communication between employees and managers and is also adds flexibility to the company, since teams can be overlapped, combined or separated according to the needs of the company at any particular time. Less rigidity means that teams can make a company more dynamic and more productive. However, Hannagan stresses the fact that a good team leader or manager will ensure that the team is composed of people with a variety of skills and abilities. The presence of different characteristics within the team is essential for it to be balanced and indeed Hannagan argues that where this is not true, the team will fail to achieve its goal. Hannagan then discusses the phenomenon of ‘Apollo syndrome’ (p. 289) Research has shown that teams which are composed only of highly intelligent members perform less well than teams which contain a greater intellectual mix. The under performance of teams which contain only very intelligent people is known as Apollo syndrome because the team members, rather than harnessing their superior intellect, actually turn against each other, criticising each others’ work and attempting to exploit weaknesses in other team members. It is clear, therefore, that a manager needs to be aware of such potential problems when putting the team together. Hannagan calls this need to manage the team successfully, overcoming ‘organisational politics’. (p. 300). He states that as well as ensuring that the group is composed of the right mix of people, the manager must also ensure that the team is focused on achieving the goals of the company and not its own internal goals. In order to do this, communication must be excellent. The manager must make sure that everyone in the teams is exchanging the necessary information, and also that the team is communicating with the rest of the organisations. Organisational politics is the disruptive influence of team members who do not work for the good of the company but for themselves. In order to maintain cohesion within the group, organisational politics must be avoided. A successfully constructed team will, however, offer greater flexibility to the company and therefore result in greater productivity. Indeed, it is this advantage of team structuring that Morgan (2006) focuses on in his discussion of teams. He states that ‘team-based organisations provide a means of breaking down the barriers between specialisms and allowing members of different functional backgrounds to fuse their skills and abilities in an / attack on common problems’. (pp. 51-2) By allowing this fusion of skills and cross-over between teams, a company makes greater use of its human resources than in a more layered structure with no overlap. The team structure can, therefore, get more out of each individual member of the company than the non-team structure. This means that the organisations is capitalizing on its work force to the greatest degree possible, leading to greater efficiency. Morgan does however indicate some of the problems which such a team structure might present. He comments that the presence of teams within organisations with high levels of bureaucracy can lead to a conflict of loyalties between the team and the department or organisation more generally. If a team member is ultimately answerable to the departmental boss, rather than the team leader, they will find it difficult to commit fully to the team and may feel partly excluded from team meetings and decision making processes. Morgan warns that these ‘dual loyalties and responsibilities usually erode team effectiveness’. (p. 53) It is, therefore, down to team leaders and managers to combat this potential problem and so, like Hannagan, Morgan indicates that teams can only succeed if they are well managed. In order to overcome the problem of split loyalty, Morgan argues that companies need to provide incentives towards team loyalty. These could take the form of rewards, as well as authority structures so that the team members answer to team leaders first, and departmental managers take a secondary role. It is essential that team members feel loyalty to their team before any other organisational structure, otherwise the advantages of having the team at all are lost. The company risks placing its employees in an unproductive middle ground between department and team if such incentives to team loyalty are not in place. However, if well structured, even highly bureaucratic companies can take full advantage of the increased productivity benefits of teams. It is clear, therefore, that teams can bring major benefits to companies, in the form of greater productivity. However, good management structures must be in place and the dynamics of group work must be properly understood in order to guarantee these benefits for the company. Fundamentally, the team which is put together must be cohesive. Cohesive teams lead to high levels of employee satisfaction which in turn results in increased productivity. In order to ensure cohesiveness, a number of factors have to be considered. The role structures within the group must be clear, tailored to the strengths of the team members and well defined. Secondly, the team must be constructed according to the type of task to be performed. A different set of skills is needed and a different group dynamic is created according to the task it has to complete. These key aspects can be achieved through good team management. If this crucial step of forming a cohesive group can be achieved, a number of benefits to the company can be seen. The team can provide support to its members leading to higher levels of employee job satisfaction. The team can also provide a model of behaviour and encourage its members to conform. Teams can also be very flexible, allowing for a number of combinations which can provide dynamic solutions to problems. By placing employees in groups, the greatest use is therefore made of the human resources of the company. However, the greatest benefit of team work is increased productivity. Whatever the task set, cohesive groups consistently show greater levels of productivity compared to individuals performing the same task. It is this productivity which is so valuable to a company and the defining reason for which groups are preferable to individuals. Works cited Buchanan, David and Huczynski, Andrej (2007) Organisational Behaviour : An Introductory Text. New York: Pearson Education. Hannagan, Tim (2002) Management Concepts and Practices. New York: Pearson Education Morgan, G. (2006) Images of Organisation. New York: SAGE Mullins, Laurie J. (2007) Management and Organisational Behaviour. New York: Pearson Education Rollinson Derek and Broadfield, Aysen (2008) Organisational Behaviour and Analysis : An Integrated Approach. New York: Pearson Education Read More