Teams Are Seen as a Necessary Condition in Contemporary Organisations, But Are They Effective - Essay Example

Teams are seen as a necessary condition in contemporary organisations, but are they effective? BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Introduction High performance organisations, those that work in diverse environments with a great deal of change and requirement for ongoing innovation, must develop team methodologies in order to find competitive success and meet long-term strategic goals laid out by executive leadership. To accomplish tasks associated with marketing, new product development, or even improvements in the operational model, the need for pooling specialized talent throughout the organisation becomes ever more important. Teams can best be defined as a group of individuals tasked together to achieve a common goal, with a certain level of interdependence on other group members. Teams should operate as functional units in which various knowledge stemming from individual group members becomes part of a collaborative environment. The question that has been asked is whether teams are effective, despite the literature which proposes its necessity in the contemporary business. The evidence provided suggests that teams are effective, so long as certain organisational and objective components exist. These include cultural knowledge, building commitment at the leadership level, the structure of the organisation or team environment, and the importance of communication. This report examines the literature associated with teams, offering a critical analysis of findings. The findings are important to organisational studies as what was uncovered in this analysis can act as a template to assist in leadership, culture and knowledge exchange designs in team environments. The need for teams Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2005) first offer that specific business studies are confused between what individuals perceive the world to be versus what the world actually consists of. In the forming stage of team development, defining specific goals is a paramount objective after individuals have been recruited. During this stage of team development, uncertainty abounds in a variety of categories from job role identification to setting up group norms and rules that will drive the functional group. A special project team requires a specific set of regulations that will guide forward momentum, something especially important in a special project team with a clear and concise end result goal. In this team, cohesion and knowledge exchange may be the objective, however the actual reality is that the organisation, itself, is guided by a centralized and vertical hierarchy where individuals have grown accustomed to the organisational culture whereby decision-making is always delivered from the top-down. Expecting individuals in the group to spontaneously change this traditional style of thinking could be a significantly difficult objective as it requires casting aside long-standing centralized philosophy in favour of more interdependent relationship. In order for a team to be successful, there must be strong leadership that is capable of establishing a horizontal communications system and modelling behaviours related to motivation and commitment building. Successful leaders, in such a group, must have “a relentless quality focus, know how to set direction, and have a strong vision through encouragement” (DeVries 1996, p.491). Leadership of this variety may not be a commonplace activity in a centralized structure, therefore more emphasis would become necessary for change at the relationship level and to remove long-standing independence in favour of a more collaborative environment. Therefore, the fundamental principles that sound good on paper about cohesive groups could be a failure aspect if members of the team are not accustomed to functioning in a horizontal communication and collaboration structure. There may be ongoing confusion and struggles for leadership well into the storming phase of the team as it progresses simply due to membership being unaccustomed to decision-making and knowledge exchanges. Elements driving team success In order for a team to function effectively, there must be ample communication between the leaders and group members regardless of their specialty in the team environment. If there are misunderstandings that abound, the end result is hostility and adversity that challenges group cohesion (O’Grady 2008). The storming stage of group development is where these situations are most noticeable. As mentioned previously, the organisational structure and norms that drive decision-making at the structural level could be the cause of team failures as collaborative decision-making represents a departure from established norms that build ongoing confusion and power struggles as people attempt to adapt to changing roles and communications principles. There is also a considerable cultural element that determines whether teams are successful in meeting their goals or collaborating without ongoing conflict being created. In individualistic societies, people tend to have self-serving agendas and do not respond well to group environments or appreciate rewards that are contingent on group success. “Individualists value independence and self-expression, believing that personal goals are more important than group goals” (Blodgett, Bakir & Rose 2008, p.339). These are fundamental principles that are driven by the society in which the business operates or at the individual level based on ethnic or lifestyle preferences associated with host country values. It is common in teams to have diverse membership with radically different demographic backgrounds, therefore having an understanding of these cultural principles is necessary to ensure a positive team effort that meets with effective results throughout the entire project life cycle. In opposite accord, collectivist mindsets include a more family-focused attitude where group needs should supersede individual goals (Blodgett et al.). There is a concept involved with cultural values referred to as power distance, which is the level that a culture feels there should be a distance between decision-making at the management level versus the role of subordinates in decision-making. “When members of the organisation are from various cultures, an understanding of differences in interpretations of cultural issues is necessary for the effective operation of the business” (Smith & Hume 2005, p.210). There may be, within the group, considerable differences regarding the level to which the team leader considers the importance of subordinate input based on such cultural power distance attitudes. In this case, at the fundamental human behavioural level, there is going to be a problem with gaining a cohesive knowledge exchange as struggles for control are transparent at the leader level. This suggests that in order for the team to be effective, cultural differences must be identified by those who are forming the team and assigning leadership roles in order for any effective communication to begin and carry throughout the team life cycle. Flynn & Mangione (2008) reinforce that building the right team and overcoming barriers are necessary in order to achieve a successful end result in project environments. All of this suggests that there must be the right leadership in order to build commitment and have the team meet with success. This is imperative in an environment that relies on knowledge exchange and specialist skills in order to meet goals such as new product development that will directly impact business success and profitability. Leadership is generally identified as one of the most fundamental success factors for ensuring collaboration and total group cohesiveness, yet it seems to be one of the most over-looked elements when designing a team environment or special project team. Dyer (2006) identifies several factors that lead to team failures, including dissatisfaction, lack of commitment to project goals, misaligned expectations, and confusion. A recent survey involving project team members from a large sample group discovered that 95 percent of those surveyed believed that it was communication that was the most important reason for meeting team success goals (Dyer). Communication is generally dictated at the leadership level and must be facilitated by having a manager with a style that is encouraging, much like a coach or mentor, in order to build such commitment. It should be expressed clearly that the role of leaders on the team are instrumental to success with the interpersonal and communications skills necessary to drive momentum and group unity. The goal of many team environments or special project groups is to drive some sort of change throughout the organisation. This could be for research and development projects, new product development teams, or simply a series of operational improvement strategies that require group and specialized knowledge collaboration. A company with a centralized chain of command in its organisational structure will be more prone to using a vertical hierarchy in the communications and decision-making process, therefore unable at the fundamental or cultural levels to build an empowered team that has self-directed elements. Reis & Pena (2008) clearly state that if self-direction is not present in areas of group development, where empowerment is an objective in communication and feedback loops, it is not ready for change. What the authors attempt to instil when it comes to developing a successful team is that there must be a sense of autonomy in the group with the ability to shed long-standing principles for centralized control as the foundation of a successful group environment. Change is the basis for many contemporary special project teams, however without these leadership-based principles for autonomy and horizontal communications, it is likely the team will not meet with success in a variety of different scenarios. There are also certain factors involved with team projects that are related to attitude that has been developed with the pre-existing organisational culture that resides at the business. There is a human behavioural element referred to as uncertainty avoidance, or the level to which ambiguity and uncertainty are tolerated by group norms. Donnison (2008) offers that organisational cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance index prefer rules and regulations in the business that build a structured approach, much like the centralized or vertical command hierarchies. Some businesses have lower uncertainty avoidance indices that give them more tolerance for conflicting values and ideas and willing to make more risky decisions if it meets with better results. Why is this discussed in relation to team environments? Since the question has been proposed as to whether teams are effective, the root of risk-taking in the group is important since these teams rely on collaboration. It was already identified that in the group development process, the second stage known as storming, by design, builds uncertainty. There may be long-standing values that have driven the organisational culture where risk is considered intolerable and there is a cultural preference for a more structured, centralized approach to decision-making. However, this principle would seem to undermine collaborative efforts in virtually every detail since free exchange of knowledge through brainstorming or planning are vital to a successful team environment. It would seem that teams can only be successful if there is the ability to shed a high uncertainty avoidance mentality and adopt more risk-taking principles by relying on uncertain advice from team members. Tarricone & Luica (2002) identify that in order to have a functional team environment, there must be a high level of group problem-solving, interpersonal skills development, and use of social skills that foster collaboration and free knowledge exchange. In a specialized project team, such as that involved with coming up with new ideas for products to be launched in a highly competitive marketplace, group problem-solving is vital. Again, this relates to social factors primarily and the ability to work inter-dependently in order to achieve problem-solving goals and establish any kind of meaningful relationship between group members. It should not be overlooked, either, that social skills and interpersonal skills development should occur as a natural evolution of project momentum in the norming stage where trust is established. However, who is responsible for facilitating these social relationships or do they occur over time naturally and without much involvement? This is a key dimension to whether it could be proposed that teams are successful as there are diverse social and cultural principles at the individual level that will either lead to conflicts or change resistance based on personality characteristics or demographic lifestyle elements. However, in order to be considered truly effective, the team must have these social dimensions or collaboration can never be achieved. Thus far, this report has focused on cultural elements as the key drivers for success in project teams or special team environments, with an emphasis on choosing effective leadership with the principles associated with motivation and trust in order to be considered successful. The evidence provided seems to suggest that there are unlimited opportunities for teams to be successful, regardless of their function or objective, only if factors involved with leadership ideals and cultural dimensions are considered very early in formation or during the first two stages of group development. Members in teams have very specialized knowledge, such as technical skills, administrative skills or various operational skills, with the team members being reliant on this expertise in order to make any positive decisions about how to proceed. Therefore, the nature of teams absolutely dictates collaboration, however resistance to collaboration seems to exist at the fundamental human psychological levels. It cannot be overstated, based on results of research findings, that social and cultural aspects, along with organisational structure, will strongly determine whether a team is effective. DeVries (1996) offered that encouraging dialogue throughout the group is the key foundation for establishing vision and direction for the project team. However, this would imply that there must be no resistance to change in this manner if there has been a long-standing principle for centralized control systems. In essence, people in teams in this type of environment with a vertical hierarchy simply are not accustomed to working collaboratively; it would go against their job role experience and social norm adjustments. There might be an ability on behalf of the project team leader to establish commitment and vision, thus leading to results, however the presence of conflict is likely to emerge when cultural differences or organisational norms set for the group are radically different from established business norms. To say that a team can be successful, in all situations, is unrealistic considering that the method of collaboration and communication might be considerably unique from what is normally experienced in a vertical command system. Conclusion The goal of the research was to determine whether teams are effective, despite their widespread use toward meeting special project or strategic goals. Based on the evidence and theories provided, it should be said that they are effective contingent on whether there is leadership equipped with change management principles and the ability to understand what drives individualized belief systems from a diverse cross-section of membership. These teams rely on collaboration and the exchange of knowledge in order to make progress, especially for complicated team projects such as new product development or operational improvements. Attempting, as a leader, to establish a collaborative environment where none previously existed as the organisational cultural norm may be a difficult, if not impossible task. There are too many social principles that will guide willingness to collaborate that must be considered. The best conclusion to draw is that teams are effective once the fundamentals of communications, the ability to move everyone in the group to a horizontal knowledge-sharing system, and understanding of cultural principles at the individual level have been identified. Without these factors in place, teams will likely fail to meet goals and meet with considerable change resistance in areas of communications, interpersonal relationship-building, and commitment. References Blodgett, J., Bakir, A. & Rose, G. (2008). A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework, The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 25, 6, p.339. DeVries, M. (1996). Leaders who make a difference, European Management Journal. 14, 5, pp.486-493. Donnison, P. (2008). Executive coaching across cultural boundaries: an interesting challenge facing coaches today, Development and Learning in Organizations. 22, 4, p.17. Dyer, S. (2006). The root causes of poor communication, Agency Sales. 36, 12, pp.52-55. Flynn, A. & Mangione, T. (2008). Five steps to a winning project team, Healthcare Executive. 23, 1, pp.54-56. O’Grady, L. (2008). [internet] Developing international talent. [accessed November 11, 2010] [available at http://www.globalhrnews.com/story.asp?sid=513. Reis, D. & Pena, L. (2008). Focus on management history – reengineering the motivation to work, Management Decision. 39, 8, pp.666-675. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2005). Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Smith, A. & Hume, E. (2005). Linking culture and ethics: a comparison of accountants’ ethical belief systems in the individualism/collectivism and power distance contexts, Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 62. Pp.209-220. Tarricone, P. & Luca, J. (2002). Employees, teamwork and social interdependence - a formula for successful business?, Team Performance Management. 8, 3/4, pp.54-60. Read More