The Dimensions of Management Team Performance - Book Report/Review Example

A Critical Review of the Dimensions of Management Team Performance Introduction The concept of teams and teamwork has evolved remarkably over the last two decades. With the passing of time and as companies gained more and more experience about using teams in the way they do business, and factoring in the tremendous developments in technology, corporate organizations have become more creative in the way teams are utilized. Even the official titles in some organizations have been revolutionized with the increasing roles that teams have assumed. Supervisors are now called team leaders (Stockly. 2006) and departments have now become teams. Companies who have employed the use of teams in their organizations have experienced benefits of improved flexibility, cost savings, customer focus, innovation and a more motivated staff force (MacBryde and Mendibil 2001). Because of this mounting reliance on the use of teams, it has become imperative that there should be clear guidance on how to assess what constitutes team performance as well as reliable direction on how to measure the same. The research undertaken by Barbara Senior and Stephen Swailes entitled “The Dimensions of Management Team Performance: A Repertory Grid Study” is therefore timely, as it is significant. The research paper of Senior and Swailes aims to encapsulate the concept of team performance, concentrating mainly on management teams. The data gathered from study conducted insinuates certain factors that characterize team performance, namely: team purpose, team organization, team leadership, team climate, interpersonal relations, team communication, and team composition. Another factor has been identified with arguments as to their validity in characterizing team performance. The methodology used was suitable and the results of the research were appropriately derived at. However, the presentation of the different factors identified needs to be more organized. Some of the concepts being presented were well-argued and supported, while there are some which requires more foundation and substance. Summary The research paper starts with a brief history on the concept of workgroups and teams, illustrating that interest in this topic in social psychology dates back to the early 1920’s. The study then provides a definition of what constitutes groups. The paper adopted Schein’s (1988) definition which considers group as people who have interaction with each other, are “psychologically aware of one another” and who recognize that they belong to a set or a group, regardless of their number. Other factors that could be considered were also discussed including working towards a common goal and having inter-reliance (Mullins, 2002, p.477). In the definition, the study also touched on the difference and more so the resemblance between groups and teams. This is followed by a somewhat extensive presentation of the continuum between teams and work groups. This section turns out to be a little confusing as the Senior and Swailes jumps between discussion about groups and teams, interchangeably. Towards the end of the section, there were some conflicting statements about whether teams and groups are different or similar. After all the previous discussion, the authors indicated that the paper is more concerned about performance of teams as opposed to work groups. With this purpose in mind, it would have been more prudent to merely make clear how to differentiate teams from groups. Senior and Swailes then tackled the concept behind team performance and how this could be measured. The first of this is measuring the team’s effectiveness by evaluating whether or not the predetermined goals that were set forth for the team have been achieved. According to the study, the popular view to measure how effective a team is by considering input, processes and outputs, drawing on the concepts from Guzzo and Shea (1992, p.280) which suggests that a team is effective by how it utilizes their resources into its intended output. In the middle of this section the authors included a concluding paragraph which agrees to different literature supporting the concept of measuring team performance by evaluating how it achieved its purpose, taking into consideration the process on how this was done. The soundness of the process is assessed by how effectively interpersonal conflicts between members were overcome and how well the team members were able to communicate with one another to be able to achieve their target – striking a balance between individual competence and interpersonal skills (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Senior and Swailes were able to support their conclusion well in this section. Their induction was based on arguments presented by previous studies that validated the importance of determining how well a work team was able to achieve its goals by taking into account the course of action and administration that the team members employed. The discussion on organizational context starts with a reference to the idea of Homan (1950) about how organizations to which a team belongs could influence how a team operates and performs. Certain variables about an organization were identified that could possibly impact its teams. Among these variables, an organization’s culture as well as its structure is considered to be able to mostly influence its teams. This conclusion is sustained by presentation of certain concepts by the authors. The discussion also includes some other organizational variables presented by other studies which could possibly affect the performance of the teams. However, there was no clear argument presented by the authors why these other variables were not considered important enough as compared with organizational structure and culture. This section also includes literature on certain models of team effectiveness wherein the authors introduced the idea that team processes and team effectiveness are in contrast with each other – an idea that was not elaborated in the same section or anywhere in the research paper. The next section supports the preference of Senior and Swailes of not using Hallam and Campbell’s (1997) Team Development Survey TM (TDSTM), Wheelan and Hochberger’s (1996) group development questionnaire and Anderson and West’s (1998) team climate inventory as measures of team performance. Each of these measures was evaluated and reasons why each of these is not appropriate to the study of Senior and Swailes were identified and clearly presented. The authors acknowledged the use of the repertory grid technique (RGT) in their study. This technique makes use of the factor analysis to identify how a person interprets personal experiences. The advantage of this method is that those being interviewed takes amore active role in the process and with minimum involvement from the researcher/s their influence in the way the informants provide their answers are free from biases (Björklund, 2008b). One disadvantage of this method, though, is that it tends to take a lot of time to come up with the results (Jankowicz, 2004). In the case of the research done by Senior and Swailes, they identified certain elements which were used in the evaluation. This method was appropriately used. It allowed each team member to interpret their experiences with their own teams and thereby providing a means of characterizing team performance in their own words and on the basis of how they construed their team experiences. Aside from the repertory grid method, specific procedures were also used during the process of the research. This procedure started with making clear to the team members the purpose for conducting the study. This ensured that focus and direction is given to the respondents at the initial stage. This is essential especially with the researchers’ use of the repertory grid technique which gives the informants somewhat free reign in the way they interpret and construe their own experiences. The next step was to do the interviews. The paper did not specify whether these interviews were done simultaneously or whether the team members were isolated from each other before the interviews were done. This would have been important to make sure that each team member is able to respond to the interviews freely and without being influenced by other members. The other procedures of identifying elements and coming up with constructs provided a logical flow in data gathering. To score the constructs obtained, the researchers used a six-point scale which the informants use to rate their own experiences. The paper did not include a discussion as to how the scale was determined. The process of scaling should involve careful consideration to come up with a realistic and relevant interpretation of the results of the interview (Kelly, 1963). The sample used in the research is confined to management teams, based on the definition provided. The sample size is reasonable and manageable which enabled the researchers to obtain sufficient data from which to draw their conclusions. The optimal sample size allowed the researchers to manage the disadvantage of the RGT of being time consuming. However, Senior and Swailes indicated that no distinction was made as to which level of management the team belongs to. Different levels of management tend to put different emphasis on each element of team performance and using a unified scaling system as what was done in the study might have affected the scoring of the interview. The detailed discussion of the results of the interview was mostly very technical. However, Senior and Swailes provided examples of constructs and construct clusters aided in understanding the results, as they were presented. A summary of the seven first-order factors with the secondary-order factors showed the results of the grid analysis. However, this fails to illustrate exactly how the grid analysis was able to come up with the seven factors. This would have been important to give transparency to the results. The discussion of the results in the paper likewise does not illustrate whether the seven factors are of equal weight or whether others were perceived to be more significant than the others. A final discussion and analysis of previous literature cited in the paper as against the actual results of the study is presented by Senior and Swailes at the end of the paper. In this section the authors presented more arguments that supported the results of the study. Most of the dimensions to team performance that were identified were rendered theoretical support by Hayes (1997) and Stott and Walker (1995). The discussion included a statement which indicates that measurement of team performances should not be influenced by factors that are beyond the control of the team and its members. However, considering the dimensions of team performance of team organization, leadership and communication, it should still be appropriate to take into account how the team and its members respond to situations deemed beyond their control – to minimize if not totally alleviate the adverse effects of these events, toward the realization of the goals of the team. The final section notes that the seven factors do not include an evaluation of how a team interacts with the organization to where it belongs as a whole. Although an explanation was offered in the form of the “boundary management” theory (Ancona and Cladwell, 1990) stating that there is a process by which teams control how they interact with organization. The Senior and Swailes felt that this theory does not fully satisfy the need to include as a factor the way the team relates to the organization which they believe should be a part of the first order factors. Although not cited by the authors in this section, their contention is well-supported by an earlier reference to the idea of Yeatts and Hyten (1998) that suggests that for teams to thrive, their existence and operations must be fully sustained by the culture of the wider organization. Lastly, Senior and Swailes supported how the different performance dimensions could be made operational and the value of their study in the management of team performance. The value to of having specific factors with which to characterize team performance is beyond reproach. However, with the lack of specific guidance in certain areas (e.g. scaling of scores) the actual operationalization of this concept is still unsure. Conclusion The methodology of the study, including the procedures and sampling used provided a logical means to the data gather. The process of obtaining the results while not properly detailed in the paper also seemed appropriate. As a whole, the research was done in a sound and coherent manner. There is a need, however, to improve on how the study was presented on the paper. Certain sections provide more information than was necessary to support the arguments presented, while other sections lack the detail to provide proper guidance. One critical area where details would have been appropriate is in the identification of the seven dimensions of team performance. The paper included only a list of the second-order factors which only provides inadequate description of what each dimension encompasses. There are also instances in the different sections of the paper where new ideas are introduced without being given any further thought and just left hanging. Conflicting ideas were also introduced in certain sections of the paper. There were references to literature which presents certain ideas to which the authors clearly agree. In the subsequent sections, however, the authors have included conclusions that are in direct contrast to the previously presented ideas. For the research paper to indicate cohesiveness, the conflicting ideas have to be resolved. In the final discussion, the authors indicated the presence of a ‘broad agreement’ between what they were able to come up with in the study and the literature that they cited earlier in the paper. This agreement is not very apparent with the way the arguments were presented. It would have been easier to follow the arguments and to create contrast and comparisons if the supporting literature were presented in the same order as how the study and its results were presented. To sum it all up, the underlying substance of the study needs to be presented in a more logical manner for the readers to effectively assess the true value of the research done. References Anderson, N., West, M.A. (1998), "Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 pp.235-58. Björklund, Lars-Erik (2008b). The Repertory Grid Technique: Making Tacit Knowledge Explicit: Assessing Creative Work and Problem Solving Skills. In H. Middleton, ed. Researching technology education: methods and techniques. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Pp 46-69. Guzzo, R.A., Shea, G.P. (1992), "Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations", in Dunnette, M.D., Hough, L.M. (Eds),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, Vol. Vol. 3 pp.269-313. Hallam, G., Campbell, D. (1997), "The measurement of team performance with a standardized survey", in Brannick, M.T., Salas, E., Prince, C. (Eds), Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods and Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp.155-71. Hayes, N. (1997), Team Management, Thomson Business Press, London. Homans, G.C. (1950), The Human Group, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY. Jankowicz, Devi (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley Katzenbach, J.R., Smith, K. (1993a), "The discipline of teams", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46 pp.111-20. Kelly, G.A. (1963), A Theory of Personality, Norton, New York, NY, . MayBryde, Jill & Mendibil, Kepa. 2001, Team Performance Measures, Center for Strategic Manufacturing, University of Stratchlyde, Scotland. Mullins, L. (2002), Management and Organisational Behaviour, 6th ed., Financial Times/Prentice-Hall, London. Schein, E.H. (1988), Process Consultation: Its Role in Organizational Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. Vol. 1. Stockly, Derek. Jul 2007, The Importance of Teams and Teamwork. http://derekstockly.au.com Stott, K., Walker, A. (1995), Teams, Teamwork and Teambuilding: The Managers Complete Guide to TEAMS in Organisations, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Wheelan, S.A. (1999), Creating Effective Teams: A Guide for Members and Leaders, Sage, London. Yeatts, D.E., Hyten, C. (1998), High-Performing Self-managed Work Teams: A Comparison of Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Read More