Team Resource Management: Use of Teams - Article Example

In the highly competitive and turbulent business environment caused by liberalization and globalization, organizations face turbulent changes and theoutcome depends on the individual and team responses. A team has been defined as “an energetic group of people who are committed to achieving common objectives, who work well together and enjoy doing so, and who produce high-quality results” (Arthur, Wall & Halligan, 2003). In a team each individual contributes their knowledge or expertise to solving a jointly owned problem which no individual can solve on his own (McGreevy, 2006). A team is like a jigsaw puzzle of complimentary parts fitting perfectly together. Teams could be of different types which include project teams, work teams, operational teams, service teams or cross-functional teams. Teams like sales, marketing or finance teams find that team working fosters collaborative rather than a competitive or adversarial approach and has an important impact on productivity. Teamwork is a critical factor in most successful companies especially as total quality management (TQM) and total productive maintenance activities are based on teamwork (Castka, Bamber, Sharp & Belohoubek, 2001). Castka et al., cite Colenso who contends that effective use of teams can bring significant improvement in productivity, creativity and employee satisfaction. The advantages of teams have been enumerated which state that teams can bring together skills and experience that far exceeds those of any individual. Team communications support real-time problem-solving and initiative. A social dimension through teams enhances the economic and administrative aspects of work. Castka et al., suggest performance measurement system can help a team to gauge its progress and a truly empowered team must play the lead in designing its own measurement system. At the same time a team should be selective in adopting measures. A work group becomes a team when leadership becomes a shared activity, accountability shifts from individual to both collective and individual, when the group develops its own purpose and vision, when effectiveness is measured by the group’s collective outcome (Thorne & Smith, 2000). Coghlan (1994) cites Lewin who states that when a group as a whole decides to have its members change their behavior; it is more effective in producing actual change. External pressure does not work but internal group dynamics has more positive effect. Besides, chances of change increase when the group’s members have strong sense of belonging to the same group. If the group is attractive to its members, it has a faster and more profound effect on the members. In managing change in any organization, it is common practice to adopt the team approach. A temporary taskforce is built where members from different departments get together and create a new way of learning from which the members can learn. Use of work teams by firms leads to improvement of results. In the dynamic and complex environment managers are forced to look for alternatives. Work teams facilitate flexibility, adaptation to the working environment and competitiveness (Escriba-Moreno & Canet-Giner, 2006). Every member in such teams remains committed and attains satisfaction. Managers increasingly use work teams as a tool in order to change organizational structure, reduce the importance of limits between business units or business organizations, and achieve flexibility. It is also considered as a linkage tool to improve coordination through mutual adaptation. Work teams contribute towards an easier coordination of the organization structure so the organization structure is more horizontal and decisions are decentralized. Work teams are also used as a control mechanism for managing skilled and creative work which leads to a reduction in the hierarchical levels of the structure. It is extensively used in total quality management (TQM) in firms. As far as TQM is concerned, self-directed teams have become popular. Such teams are groups of employees who are responsible for a whole product or a process. Self-directed teams are also known self-managing teams, self-maintaining teams or self-leading teams (Attaran & Nguyen, 2000). These teams are a logical extension of quality circles. Such teams are based on the contention that organizations combine people and technology in different forms to produce outputs. This is a direct outgrowth of sociotechnical systems and is used through the cross sectional design teams. Planned change programs are implemented, learning encouraged and improvements initiated in self-directed teams. Research suggests that organizations managed in self-managed teams report improvement in quality and productivity, reduction in turnover and absenteeism, streamlining of job classifications and better relationships with the unions. Harley-Davidson in York, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland and Logan Aluminium in Kentucky have all successfully implemented self-managed teams. Empowerment to employees ensures joint responsibility by the management and the non-management. It helps in reducing operating costs when the team concentrates on work processes. Transition from conventional teams requires successful reengineering of an organization. Self-managed teams are used by companies that are engaged in delivery of services. Service delivery today is the key to competitive advantage. Companies like Prudential Life and Twentieth Century Insurance delegate the collective responsibility for customer service quality to self-managed teams (SMT). SMTs require a broad range of knowledge, skills and abilities in performing service activities. Empirical evidence suggests that in service delivery SMTs perform better than the teams under management control (Jong, Ruyter & Lemmink, 2005). Virtual teams are comprised of people who are geographically separated and who work across boundaries of space and time with the use of technology (Arnison & Miller, 2002). Team members seldom meet face to face. Organizations like IBM, Ford Motors and Whirlpoool are examples of firms that have successfully implemented virtual teams. Such teams allow the members to work for more than one organization and in one location or different countries. Employees need not be relocated in such teams and organizations can avoid the expenses on international travel. Verifone, an organization that makes computerized swipe machines uses virtual teams as a strategy to overcome communication barriers associated with numerous employees in different locations. Even conventional teams use technology the same way as virtual teams due to which they are sometimes classified as virtual teams. This implies that a team can work virtually even when team members work in the same building, same floor or even the same room. People even work as teams from home using emails and mobile phones as tools of communication. Virtual teams have enhanced communication and benefits of networking. Virtual teams are far flung and hence require collaborative knowledge becomes essential. There are some competing alliances and demands and the members have to adjust to some missing social mechanisms like the non-verbal cues (Malhotra & Majchrak, 2004). Some of the problems that such virtual teams face are unevenly distributed knowledge, private communication or mistaken assumptions and failure to communicate knowledge about the task context. Team members have expressed that sharing knowledge makes the decision process too explicit, accountable and monitored by others. Hence empowerment that is essential in team work has no value. Virtual teams are heterogeneous in composition and the diversity of knowledge perspectives make these teams fertile grounds for new knowledge creation. Team members develop a shared understanding of the assumptions, tasks, work processes and contexts necessary for effective and successful collaboration. These teams require the support of information technology for knowledge exchange and collaboration. For far-flung virtual teams to function effectively, it is essential that they achieve a strategic fit between task characteristics, team composition and information technology. Many technology based firms have responded to globalization by decentralizing geographically. They face the problem of knowledge transfer which requires cooperation between different departments and many diverse groups. Firms are now using an innovative method of intra-firm technology transfer. One such mechanism is the use of cross-functional teams. This is like a project team where members get together from the technology sending, technology receiving firms apart from different functional areas like engineering, finance and marketing (Malik, 2004). Cross-functional teams are known to perform better when they combine their perspectives in an interactive way. Forming cross-functional teams is a way of responding to the dispersion of employees in downsized and lean organizations. Such teams can respond quickly, creatively and flexibly to problems and they operate as virtual teams in technology transfer projects. Cross-functional teams are usually headed by a project manager who needs to demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the technical issues. Jabri (2004) suggests that individual perception of the team members in a research and development team was used as a springboard to induce the members to talk openly about their differences and to help them see how change could be constructed through change as the medium. This process helped them to learn more from each other and enhanced their understanding on issues which were impediments to their progress. Study revealed that this gave them an opportunity to discuss things that they had not previously discussed. It gives an opportunity to reflect on the importance of probing their own assumptions in relation to the assumptions held by other members in the team. This helps to create shared meanings rather than distinctions. Thus team feedbacks help members to be better equipped for work and change. There has to be a more involved approach in the conduct of interventions. In the highly competitive global marketplace project teams are formed to enable multiple perspectives, a variety of experiences and a broad skill set which has a bearing on the project (Hacker, 2000). Project teams are similar to teams where a set of people get together and have high degree of interdependence, aiming for a goal or completion of a task. Such teams are time limited and disband after the project is completed. Project teams are temporary and they collate individuals who contribute to a common goal. It is a unique group of individuals who work together in a controlled environment towards a common goal (Atkins & Gilbert, 2003). Project planning is the process of establishing the course of action within the prevailing environment to attain the predetermined objectives. A successful project is one that achieves the expected results (Hayes, 2000). A project team’s performance depends on timely performance within the budget, a concern for quality and technical issues (Bubshait & Farooq, 1999). The team members should be brought together at the earliest possible stage of the project which can result in more flexibility and adaptability, more timely and balanced decisions, and more rapid management response to market and technology (Atkins & Gilbert). The members’ interests, strengths and contributions to the project have to be accounted. The team members should not only be allowed to do what they do best but they should also be given an opportunity to develop other skills. At the same time, if members do not volunteer for a particular role, they would have to be assigned regardless of personal interest and strengths (Schneider, 2001). In the case of family businesses it has been observed that personality differences have an impact in the way family members process information, make decisions and interact with others (Filbeck & Smith, 1997). It is essential to understand that conflicts in family businesses arise due to differences in personality and not because of an intention to provoke. To overcome the shortcomings of personality differences, family business should make the best use of variety of talents and abilities offered by a diverse work team. Instead of seeking a homogenous work team they should concentrate on improving communication between the diverse elements of the work team. This will result in improved morale, reduced conflicts and increased productivity. Succession transitions may also become smooth and division of responsibilities and duties may be effective. Using any form of teams in any organizational structure requires additional skills as the responsibilities of the team members are enhanced. Using teams leads to shift in responsibility from the supervisors to teams. Since there is a shift in responsibility and requirement of skills, it is evident that management and leadership have an impact on the planning process and the operation of the team (Huusko, 2006). The team leader has to ensure that the team functions well whereas the manager has the overall responsibility of the team including providing facilities and resources. Hence, using teams results in clear changes in the organization of work. It is also being recognized that empowering employees can lead to improved cooperation which leads to higher production. Giving them the decision making authority might also bind the workers to the company. Understanding the globally distributed consumers requires an ability to understand the needs of consumers who may be speaking different languages, who have different set of cultural beliefs and who express their preferences differently (McDonough, Kahn & Barczak, 2001). To meet these needs firms are forming new product development (NPD) teams that are dispersed throughout the world. Expertise needed for developing new products can also be scattered through out the world. Globally dispersed teams have the potential to provide a practical and economical way to develop new products and services. Such teams have short comings as they are culturally diverse and geographically dispersed. Cultural diversity impacts team behavior. Such teams have higher levels of creativity and provide better alternatives to problems but they can also have trouble resolving conflicts, creating cohesion and building trust. Nevertheless, the use of global teams is on the rise. When members are located at dispersed facilities, it is economically viable and fiscally prudent to rely on global development teams. Global teams help develop products for global markets. It is thus seen that organizations have been compelled by circumstances to work in groups or form teams. Geographical dispersion is largely responsible for this. Teams can be for a specific project who disband after the project is completed or they form workgroups. Teams are no more restricted to traditional face to face teams and can work across time and space by the support of information technology. Whatever be the structure of the team the most effective team work occurs through cohesion, trust and cooperation. Team work is essential in any organization as diversity leads to innovation and creativity. Teams may lead to conflicts but conflicts are not always detrimental to the interest of the organization. Conflicts may even enhance performance as diverse perception to the problems can lead to innovative solutions. For teams to function skills have to be added and knowledge has to be shared. Cross-functional teams, virtual teams and global teams have eliminated the barriers of geographical location. Cross-functional teams are beneficial when the firms are downsized or in lean organizations. For new product development, for catering to the diverse needs of the globally located consumers, these teams have been found to be beneficial. For teams to be successful it is essential that management is fully involved and the leaders have the necessary expertise to handle teams. Teams of different forms for different purposes lead to reduced absenteeism, increased productivity and reduced expenses. Even in family businesses, instead of focusing on the personality differences, the diverse talents and abilities can be used to improve morale and reduce conflicts. When teams are empowered they learn to recognize and accept responsibility, accountability and feel committed to the organization. The different teams pose challenges but the benefits far outweigh the shortcomings. References: Arthur, H., Wall, D., & Halligan, A., (2003), Team Resource Management: a programme for troubled teams, Clinical Governance, Vol. 8 No. 1 pp. 86-91 Arnison, L., & Miller, P., (2002), Virtual teams: a virtue for the conventional teams, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 14 No. 2 pp. 166-173 Atkins, S., & Gilbert, G., (2003), The role of induction and training in team effectiveness, Project Management Journal. Sylva: Jun 2003.Vol.34, Iss. 2; pg. 48 Attaran, M., & Nguyen, T. T., (2000), Creating the right structural fit for self-directed teams, Team Performance Management: An International Journal Volume 6 . Number 1/2 . 2000 . pp. 25-33 Bubshait, A. A., & Farooq, G., (1999), Team building and project success, Cost Engineering. Morgantown: Jul 1999.Vol.41, Iss. 7; pg. 34, 5 pgs Castka, P., Bamber, C. J., Sharp, J. & Belohoubek, P., (2001), Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams, Team Performance Management, Vol. 7 No. 7/8 pp. 123-134 Coghlan, D., (1994), Managing Organizational Change through Teams and Groups, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1994, pp. 18- 23 Escriba-Moreno, M. A., & Canet-Giner, M. T., (2004), The combined use of quality management program and work teams, Team Performance Management Vol. 12 No. 5/6, 2006 pp. 162-181 Filbeck, G., & Smith, L. L., (1997), Team Building and Conflict Management: Strategies for Family Businesses, FAMILY BUSINESS REVIEW, vol. 10, no.4, December 1997 Hacker, M., (2000), The impact of top performers on project teams, Team Performance Management: An International Journal Volume 6. Number 5/6. 2000. pp. 85-89 Hayes, D, S., (2000), Evaluation and Application of a Project Charter Template to Improve the Project Planning Process, Project Management Journal, 87569728, Mar2000, Vol. 31, Issue 1 Huusko, L., (2006), The lack of skills: an obstacle in teamwork, Team Performance Management Vol. 12 No. 1/2, 2006 pp. 5-1 Jabri, M., (2004), Team feedback based on dialogue, Journal of Management Development Vol. 23 No. 2, 2004 pp. 141-151 Jong, A., Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J., (2005), Service Climate in Self-Managing Teams: Mapping the Linkage of Team Member, Journal of Management Studies 42:8 December 2005 Malhotra, A., & Majchrak, A., (2004), Enabling knowledge creayion in far flung teams: best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 4 pp. 75-88 Malik, K., (2004), Co-ordination of technological knowledge flow in firms, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2 pp. 64-72 McDonough, E. F., Kahn, K. B., & Barczak, G., (2001), An investigation in the use of global, virtual and colocated new product development teams, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18 (2001), pp. 110-120 McGreevy, M., (2006), Team working: part 2 – how are teams chosen and developed? Industrial and Commercial Training, VOL. 38 NO. 7 2006, pp. 365-370 Schneider, D., (2001), Interpersonal Skills in Organizations, Project Management, Ch 17, The McGraw Hill Companies, 2001 Throne, K., & Smith, M., (2000), Accounting control and performance measurement in a teamworking environment, Managerial Auditing Journal 15/7 [2000] 348-357 Read More