JOB AND TEAM DESIGN:TEAM-DESIGN

TEAM-DESIGN

Historical Background

The major approaches to job design, as discussed in Section 2, typically focus on designing jobs for individual workers; however, it is also possible to design jobs around work teams. In designing jobs for teams, one assigns a task or set of tasks to a group of workers rather than an individual and considers the group to be the unit of performance. Objectives and rewards focus on group, not individual, behavior. Depending on the nature of the tasks, a team’s workers may be performing the same tasks simultaneously or they may break tasks into subtasks to be performed by individuals within the team. Subtasks could be assigned on the basis of expertise or interest, or team members might rotate from one subtask to another to provide job variety and increase the breadth of skills and flexibility in the workforce.

Some tasks, because of their size or complexity or for other reasons, seem to fit naturally into a team job design, whereas others may seem to be appropriate only at the individual job level. In many cases, though, there may be a considerable degree of choice regarding whether to organize work around teams or individuals. In such situations, the engineer should consider the advantages and disadvantages of the use of teams as the unit for job design with respect to an organization’s goals, policies, technologies, and constraints.

Team-based approaches to organizing work have become very popular in the last two decades in the United States (Goodman et al. 1987; Guzzo and Shea 1992; Hollenbeck et al. 1995; Tannenbaum et al. 1996). Theoretical treatments of team effectiveness have predominantly used input–process– output (IPO) models, as popularized by such authors as McGrath (1964), as frameworks to discuss team design and effectiveness (Guzzo and Shea 1992). Many variations on the IPO model have been presented in the literature over the years (e.g., Denison et al. 1996; Gladstein 1984; Sundstrom et al. 1990).

Social psychologists have studied groups and teams for several decades, mostly in laboratory settings. They have identified problems such as social loafing or free riding, groupthink, decision- making biases, and process losses and inhibitions that operate in groups (Diehl and Strobe 1987; Harkins 1987; Janis 1972; McGrath 1984; Paulus 1998; Steiner 1972; Zajonc 1965). Some empirical field studies have found that the use of teams does not necessarily result in positive outcomes (e.g., Katz et al. 1987; Tannenbaum et al. 1996), while others have shown positive effects from the imple- mentation of teams (e.g., Banker et al. 1996; Campion et al. 1993, 1996; Cordery et al. 1991). Given that so many organizations are transitioning to team-based work design, it is imperative that the design and implementation of teams be based on the increasing knowledge from team-design research.

Design Recommendations

Design recommendations are organized around the IPO model of work team effectiveness shown in Figure 1. The variables in the model are briefly described below. A more detailed explanation of each variable is contained in Figure 1.Input Factors

Inputs are the design ingredients that predispose team effectiveness. There are at least four basic types of inputs needed to ensure that teams are optimally designed:

1. Design the jobs to be motivating and satisfying. The characteristics of jobs that make them motivating in a team setting are basically the same as those that make them motivating in an individual setting. Some of the key characteristics applicable in teams are listed below and described in Figure 1 in more detail. They can be used to evaluate or design the jobs in your client’s organization.

(a) Allow the team adequate self-management.

(b) Encourage participation among all members.

(c) Encourage task variety; all members should perform varied team tasks.

(d) Ensure that tasks are viewed by members as important.

(e) Allow the team to perform a whole piece of work.

(f) Make sure the team has a clear goal or mission.

2. Make the jobs within the team interdependent. Teams are often formed by combining inter- dependent jobs. In other cases, the jobs can be made to be interdependent to make them appropriate for teams. For example, reorganizing a company around its business processes normally requires making the work interdependent. Listed below (and in Figure 1) are several ways jobs can be interdependent.

(a) Make tasks interdependent; jobs must be linked or teams are not needed.

(b) Set interdependent goals for team members.

(c) Have interdependent feedback and rewards for team members, with both linked to team performance.

3. Compose the team of the right people. Properly selecting people for a team may be even more important than for individual jobs because a poor selection decision can affect the performance of the entire team. Staffing teams may also be more complex. Some of the key variables to consider are as follows.

(a) Ensure that team members have a high level of skills.

(b) Have varied team membership, especially in terms of complementary skills.

(c) Staff the team with people who are flexible in terms of job assignments.

(d) Ensure appropriate team size; just large enough (but not too large) for the work involved.

(e) Select employees with a preference for working in teams.

4. Arrange the context to support teamwork. In order for a new work arrangement like teams to be effective, the organization must be arranged to enable or facilitate them. Following are several key examples.

(a) Train the work teams in both team skills and task skills.

(b) Make all necessary information available to the team.

(c) Ensure proper boundary management by facilitating communication and cooperation be- tween teams.

(d) Provide managerial support for the team.

Process Factors

Process factors are intermediate indicators of effectiveness. (Note that ‘‘team process,’’ which refers to how the team operates, is different than ‘‘business process,’’ which refers to how the work flows through the organization to get accomplished.) There are at least three categories of team process indicators of effectiveness. Although these are intermediate outcomes, they can also be influenced through the design of the team or through encouragement, as indicated below.

1. Encourage a high-energy environment. This is the first indication that the team may be properly designed. It refers not just to working harder, but to heightened levels of interest and enthu- siasm. Even if this is not forthcoming immediately, it can be encouraged in many ways, such as the following (also see Figure 1).

(a) Create or encourage a high-effort norm within the team.

(b) Create an environment that encourages innovation within the team.

(c) Facilitate problem solving within the team.

(d) Create opportunities for skill usage.

(e) Encourage team spirit (potency).

2. Ensure that the team is properly directed. The higher energy of the team must be properly directed if it is going to enhance the attainment of organizational goals. There are a number of indicators that a team is properly directed. Key examples follow below. Each can also be encouraged by the management above the team or the consultant.

(a) Encourage a sense of accountability and responsibility within the team.

(b) Create or encourage a customer orientation in the team.

(c) Create a learning orientation in the team.

(d) Facilitate communication within the team.

3. Encourage proper affective and interpersonal behavior on the team. Not only is this important from a quality of work life point of view, but the long-term viability of the team depends on the members’ willingness to work with each other in the future. Many key indicators of proper affect within the team should be present or encouraged, such as the following:

(a) Facilitate cooperation within the team.

(b) Encourage social support among team members.

(c) Ensure the workload is shared appropriately among team members.

(d) Facilitate the prompt resolution of conflict within the team.

(e) Encourage good interpersonal relationships within the team.

(f) Encourage trust within the team.

Output Factors

Outputs are the ultimate criteria of team effectiveness. The most important outcome is whether the teams enhance the business process. There are two basic categories of outputs. Both are central to the definition of team effectiveness as well as to effective business processes.

1. Effective teams are productive and efficient, and they may also improve quality and reduce costs, as explained in the first part of this chapter.

2. Effective teams are satisfying. This includes not only job satisfaction, but motivated and com- mitted employees. Satisfaction also applies to the customers of the team’s products or services. These outcomes were also explained in more detail in the first part of the chapter.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Work teams can offer several advantages over the use of individuals working separately. Table 3 lists some of these advantages. To begin with, teams can be designed so that members bring a combination of different knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to bear on a task. Team members can improve their KSAs by working with those who have different KSAs (McGrath 1984), and cross-training on different tasks can occur as a part of the natural workflow. As workers become capable of performing different subtasks, the workforce becomes more flexible. Members can also provide performance feedback to one another that they can use to adjust and improve their work behavior. Creating teams whose members have different KSAs provides an opportunity for synergistic combinations of ideas and abilities that might not be discovered by individuals working alone. Heterogeneity of abilities and personalities has been found to have a generally positive effect on team performance, especially when task requirements are diverse (Goodman et al. 1986; Shaw 1983).

Other advantages include social facilitation and support. Facilitation refers to the fact that the presence of others can be psychologically stimulating. Research has shown that such stimulation can have a positive effect on performance when the task is well learned (Zajonc 1965) and when other team members are perceived as potentially evaluating the performer (Harkins 1987; Porter et al. 1987). With routine jobs, this arousal effect may counteract boredom and performance decrements (Cartwright 1968). Social support can be particularly important when teams face difficult or unpopular decisions. It can also be important in groups such as military squads and medical teams for helping workers deal with difficult emotional and psychological aspects of tasks they perform.

Another advantage of teams is that they may increase the information exchanged between mem- bers. Communication can be increased through proximity and the sharing of tasks (McGrath 1984). Intrateam cooperation may also be improved because of team-level goals, evaluation, and rewards (Deutsch 1949; Leventhal 1976). Team rewards can be helpful in situations where it is difficult or impossible to measure individual performance or where workers mistrust supervisors’ assessments of performance (Milkovich and Newman 1996).

Increased cooperation and communication within teams can be particularly useful when workers’ jobs are highly coupled. There are at least three basic types of coupling, or sequencing of work: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal. In pooled coupling, members share common resources but are otherwise independent. In sequential coupling, members work in a series. Workers whose tasks come later in the process must depend on the performance of workers whose tasks come earlier. In recip- rocal coupling, workers feed their work back and forth among themselves. Members receive both inputs and outputs from other members (Thompson 1967; Mintzberg 1979). Team job design would be especially useful for workflows that have sequential or reciprocal coupling.

Many of the advantages of work teams depend on how teams are designed and supported by their organization. The nature of team tasks and their degree of control can vary. According to much of the theory behind team job design, which is primarily from the motivational approach, decision making and responsibility should be pushed down to the team members (Hackman 1987). By pushing decision making down to the team and requiring consensus, the organization should find greater acceptance, understanding, and ownership of decisions among workers (Porter et al. 1987). The increased autonomy resulting from making work decisions should be both satisfying and motivating for teams (Hackman 1987).

The motivational approach would also suggest that the set of tasks assigned to a team should provide a whole and meaningful piece of work (i.e., have task identity) (Hackman 1987). This allows team members to see how their work contributes to a whole product or process, which might not be possible for individuals working alone. This can give workers a better idea of the significance of their work and create greater identification with a finished product or service. If team workers rotate among a variety of subtasks and cross-train on different operations, workers should also perceive greater variety in the work. Autonomy, identity, significance, variety, and feedback are all character- istics of jobs that have been found to enhance motivation. Finally, teams can be beneficial to the organization if team members develop a feeling of commitment and loyalty to their team (Cartwright 1968).

Thus, designing work around teams can provide several advantages to organizations and their workers. Unfortunately, there are also some disadvantages to using work teams. Whether or not teams are beneficial can depend on several factors particular to the composition, structure, and environment of teams and the nature of their tasks. Table 3 lists some of the possible disadvantages of designing work around teams.

For example, some individuals may dislike teamwork and may not have the necessary interper- sonal skills or desire to work in a team. In addition, individuals may experience less autonomy and less personal identification when working on a team task than on an individual task. Designing work around teams does not guarantee individual team members greater variety, significance, and identity. If members within the team do not rotate among tasks or if some team members are assigned exclusively to less desirable tasks, not all members will benefit from team job-design. Members can still have fractionated, demotivating jobs. How one organizes work within the team is important in determining the effects of team job design.

Teamwork can also be incompatible with cultural norms. The United States has a very individ- ualistic culture (Hofstede 1980). In addition, organizational norms, practices, and labor–management relations may be incompatible with team job design, making its use more difficult.

Some of the advantages of team design can create other disadvantages. Although team rewards can spur greater cooperation and reduce competition within a team, they may cause greater compe- tition and reduced communication between teams. If members identify too strongly with the team, they may fail to recognize when behaviors that benefit the team detract from organizational goals. Competition between teams can be motivating up to a point, after which it can create conflicts that are detrimental to productivity.

Increased communication within teams may not always be task relevant. Teams may spend work time socializing. Team decision making can take longer than individual decision making, and reaching a consensus can be time consuming. The need for coordination within teams takes time and faulty coordination can create problems.

Team processes can also inhibit decision making and creativity. When teams become highly cohesive they may become so alike in their views that they develop ‘‘groupthink’’ (Janis 1972; Paulus 1998). When groupthink occurs, teams tend to underestimate their competition, fail to adequately critique fellow team members’ suggestions, fail to survey and appraise alternatives adequately, and fail to work out contingency plans. In addition, team pressures can distort judgments. Decisions may be based more on the persuasive abilities of dominant individuals or the power of majorities than on the quality of information and decisions. Research has found a tendency for group judgments to be more extreme than the average of individual members’ predecision judgments (Isenberg 1986; McGrath 1984; Pruitt 1971). This may aid reaching a consensus, but it may be detrimental if judg- ments are poor.

Although evidence shows that highly cohesive groups are more satisfied with the group, high cohesiveness is not necessarily related to high productivity. Whether cohesiveness is related to per- formance depends on group norms and goals. If a group’s norm is to be productive, cohesiveness

The use of teams and team-level rewards can also decrease the motivating power of evaluation and reward systems. If team members are not evaluated for their individual performance, do not believe that their output can be distinguished from the team’s, or do not perceive a link between their own performance and their outcomes, free-riding or social loafing (Albanese and Van Fleet 1985; Cartwright 1968; Latane et al. 1979) can occur. In such situations, teams do not perform up to the potential expected from combining individual efforts.

Finally, teams may be less flexible in some respects because they are more difficult to move or transfer as a unit than individuals (Sundstrom et al. 1990). Turnover, replacements, and employee transfers may disrupt teams. And members may not readily accept new members.

Thus, whether work teams are advantageous or not depends to a great extent on the composition, structure, reward systems, environment, and task of the team. Table 4 presents questions that can help determine whether work should be designed around teams rather than individuals. The greater the number of questions answered in the affirmative, the more likely teams are to succeed and be beneficial. If one chooses to design work around teams, suggestions for designing effective work teams and avoiding problems are presented below.