TEAMS AND TEAM MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP:TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Team performance can be approached in many ways. The following model (developed specifically for QI teams) adopts a systems perspective to conceptualizing team performance by classifying the various factors affecting or related to performance into three broad categories derived from the structure–process–outcome paradigm espoused by Donabedian (1992). The model is displayed in Figure 1 and discussed in detail below. While it was developed in the context of quality improvement, many or all of its elements apply to other teams as well.

Structure Variables

Structure variables are the contextual parameters that may impact team processes and outcomes. We identified the following three dimensions within which the different structure variables could be classified: organizational characteristics, team characteristics, and task characteristics.

Organizational Characteristics

Researchers have discussed the impact of several organizational variables on project outcomes. Three factors stand out: top-management support, middle-management support, and sufficiency of resources.

• Top-management support of project teams has been stressed in terms of the extent to which the management encourages the team, provides constructive feedback, actively champions the pro-

• Middle-management support is deemed important for successful QI team performance because team members need to be given time off by their supervisors from their routine jobs to work on team issues (Gladstein 1984; Davis 1993). Team members have often reported difficulty in obtaining permission from their supervisors to attend team meetings (CHSRA 1995). Indeed, lack of encouragement and recognition and inadequate freedom provided by supervisors has been shown to contribute to delays in successful completion of projects (Early and Godfrey 1995).

• Sufficiency of resources, although an aspect of top-management support, has been so consistently linked with project outcome that it warrants separate discussion. Availability of adequate train- ing, access to data resources, ongoing consulting on issues related to data collection, analysis, and presentation, adequate allocation of finances, and availability of administrative support are some of the resources cited as important in studies on team effectiveness (Mosel and Shamp 1993; Levin 1992; Smith and Hukill 1994; Early and Godfrey 1995; Gustafson et al. 1992; Nieva et al. 1978; CHSRA 1995).

Team Characteristics

Team characteristics, or group composition, has received significant attention in studies on team effectiveness. We identified the following seven distinct aspects of team composition that are likely to impact QI team performance: team heterogeneity, team expertise, team authority, preference for teamwork, familiarity, team size, and quality-improvement training and expertise.

• Team heterogeneity refers to the mix of personalities, attitudes, skills, background, abilities, rank, and experience among team members. Several studies have discussed the significant impact of team heterogeneity on team effectiveness (Guzzo and Dickson 1996; Campion et al. 1993; Morgan and Lassiter 1992; Salas et al. 1992).

• Team expertise assesses the team’s ability to solve the assigned problem. A QI team would possess the expertise required to complete a project successfully if it included members who had expert knowledge of the functional area under study as well as adequate training and experience in the methods of quality improvement. In particular, studies show that successful teams have adequate representation of all departments affected by the process under study,

especially the process owners who have intimate knowledge of the process. In addition, suc- cessful teams also include members with prior QI teamwork experience (Rollins et al. 1994; Flowers et al. 1992; Johnson and Nash 1993; CHSRA 1995).

• Team authority assesses the relative power of the team within the organization that would facilitate the completion of the project efficiently and successfully. For instance, Gustafson et al. (1992) suggest that the reputation of the team leader and other team members among the affected parties significantly impacts the implementation success of solutions. Involvement of people in a position of authority on the team, such as department heads, and inclusion of opinion leaders, i.e., people whose opinions are well respected by the affected parties, helps in over- coming resistance to change and eases the process of solution implementation (CHSRA 1995; Davis 1993; Nieva et al. 1978; Rollins et al. 1994).

• Preference for teamwork is another important element of team composition. Campion et al. (1993) cite research that shows that employees who prefer to work in teams are likely to be more satisfied and effective as members of a team.

• Familiarity among team members may lead to improved group dynamics and hence better team effectiveness. Team members who are more familiar with each other may be more likely to work together better and exhibit higher levels of team performance (Misterek 1995).

• Team size has been found to have an important effect on team performance (Morgan and Lassiter 1992). Although larger teams result in increased resources, which may lead to improved team effectiveness, they may also lead to difficulties in coordination and reduced involvement of team members (Campion et al. 1993; Morgan and Lassiter 1992). Campion et al. (1993) suggest that teams should be staffed to the smallest number needed to carry out the project.

• Quality-improvement training and experience of team members has also been shown to affect the outcome of QI projects significantly. Although it features as an aspect of overall team expertise, we consider it important enough in the context of QI project teams to discuss sepa- rately. Case studies of successful QI teams show that most of the members of the teams had either participated on other QI projects or at least received some form of prior QI training, such as familiarity with the common QI tools and group processes (CHSRA 1995).

Task Characteristics

Task characteristics are factors that are specific to the problem assigned to the project team. We classify the various task characteristics deemed important in previous research studies into three categories:

1. Task complexity has been studied at two levels: (a) as a measure of the complexity of the process being studied, e.g., number of departments affected by the process (CHSRA 1995; Misterek 1995), the difficulty of measuring the process quantitatively (Davis 1993; Juran 1994); and (b) as a measure of the complexity of the goals assigned to the team, e.g., scope of the project, number of goals to be accomplished (Juran 1994).

2. Tension for change assesses the importance, severity, and significance of the project. Greater tension for change leads to higher motivation for solving the problem (Juran 1994; Gustafson et al. 1992; Van de Ven 1980). In order to be successful, projects should (a) be selected based on data-driven evidence of the existence of the problem (Mosel and Shamp 1993; Rollins et al. 1994; CHSRA 1995); (b) focus on processes that are a cause of dissatisfaction among the process owners (Gustafson et al. 1992); and (c) be considered important areas for improvement by management (Mosel and Shamp 1993).

3. Clear directions and boundaries refer to the extent to which management provides the team with a clear mandate. The clarity with which management describes the problem, its require- ments, and project goals and explains the available team resources and constraints has been discussed as directly affecting team processes and outcomes (Misterek 1995; Levin 1992; Gustafson et al. 1992; Fleishman and Zaccaro 1992).

5.2. Process Variables

Mosel and Shamp (1993) and Levin (1992) classify process variables into two core dimensions:

(1) task or project dimension, which consists of processes that are directly related to solving the assigned problem, such as use of QI tools, efficient planning of meetings, and solution generation and implementation, and (2) relationship or socioemotional dimension, which deals with the dynamics and relationships among team members, such as communication and harmony. Since team leadership impacts both task and relationship issues, we consider it separately as a third dimension of process variables. We discuss these three dimensions of process variables next.

Task Issues

The following five task variables have been shown to impact team outcomes and other team processes:

1. Efficient meetings management has been shown to result in sustained member involvement and improved overall efficiency with which the team solves the problem (CHSRA 1995). In particular, the advantages of mutually establishing team norms up front (such as meeting times, frequency, and length), and advanced planning of meeting agenda and assignment of respon- sibility to members for specific agenda items have been highlighted (Davis 1993; Juran 1994).

2. Quality-improvement tools aid the team at various stages of the project. Effective use of tools has been shown to help teams keep track of their activities, clarify understanding of the system, help identify problems and solution, help maintain focus, and aid in decision making and data collection and analyses (Plsek 1995; Scholtes 1988; CHSRA 1995; Levin 1992).

3. Involvement of key personnel, especially those who are directly affected by the process being studied, significantly improves the chances of success of a QI project (Gustafson et al. 1992). For instance, involvement of process owners during the various stages of problem exploration, solution design, and implementation results in a better understanding of the problem by the team and leads to solutions that are more likely to be accepted and implemented smoothly (Rollins et al. 1994; CHSRA 1995; Van de Ven 1980).

4. External expertise refers to sources outside the organization that may be helpful to the team during the various stages of the project. For instance, comparison of current levels of perform- ance with industry standards often helps in providing data-based evidence of the severity of the problem, thereby resulting in increased management support (CHSRA 1995). Networking with other organizations that have successfully solved similar problems and identifying bench- marks helps teams develop successful solutions (Gustafson et al. 1992). Examples of other sources of external expertise that can help teams better understand the problem, and design effective solutions include literature, consultants, and clearinghouses (Rollins et al. 1994; CHSRA 1995).

5. Poor solution implementation not only may lead to significant delays in completion of a project (Early and Godfrey 1995) but may also result in the failure of the team’s solutions in resulting in any substantial improvement (Gustafson et al. 1992). In order to implement its solutions successfully, the team needs to get buy-in from the process owners (Juran 1994; Rollins et al. 1994; Gustafson et al. 1992; Johnson and Nash 1993; CHSRA 1995). In order to evaluate and demonstrate the advantages of their solutions, the team needs to develop easy to measure process and outcome variables and must have in place a well-designed data-collection strategy (Juran 1994; CHSRA 1995). In addition, feedback from the process owners should be obtained to facilitate further improvement of the process (Gustafson et al. 1992).

Relationship Issues

The relationship-based variables that have been shown to impact a team’s performance are as follows:

• Team harmony refers to the ability of team members to manage conflict and work together as a cohesive unit. The extent to which team members cooperate with one and other and work well together has been shown to affect team outcomes positively (Misterek 1995; Guzzo and Dickson 1996; Mosel and Shamp 1993).

• Team potency has been defined as a team’s collective belief that it can be effective (Guzzo and Dickson 1996). It is similar to Bandura’s (1982) notion of self-efficacy. Campion et al. (1993) have demonstrated a positive relationship between team potency and outcomes such as team productivity, effectiveness, and team member satisfaction.

• Participatory decision making (PDM) refers to involvement of all team members on important team decisions. Participation in decisions results in an increase in members’ sense of respon- sibility and involvement in the team’s task (Campion et al. 1993). PDM style has been shown to be a common characteristic of successful QI teams (CHSRA 1995; Scholtes 1988).

• Workload sharing, similar to PDM, ascertains the extent of balanced participation among mem- bers of a team. Teams where most of the members contribute equally to the work have been shown to be more productive and successful (CHSRA 1995; Campion et al. 1993; Scholtes 1988).

• Commitment of team members to the team’s goals is one of the driving forces behind effective teams (Waguespack 1994). Successful QI teams have reported member motivation and com- mitment to improve the process as being a critical factor in their success (CHSRA 1995).

• Communication is a critical component of teamwork because it serves as the linking mechanism among the various processes of team functioning (Rosenstein 1994). For instance, Davis (1993) discusses the impact of open communications among members of a QI team on team member commitment. Studies have also demonstrated a positive association between open communica- tion and team performance and team member satisfaction (Gladstein 1984; Campion et al. 1993).

• Rewards and recognition help motivate team members and enhance their commitment to team goals (CHSRA 1995). Levin (1992) suggests that formally celebrating the achievement of var- ious project milestones helps a QI team maintain its momentum, motivation, and enthusiasm for accomplishing the project successfully.

Leadership

The impact of team leadership on team performance has been extensively researched. The role of a team leader is to provide direction, structure, and support to other team members (Dickinson et al. 1992). The behavior and competence of the team leader has been shown to affect significantly both team processes and outcomes (CHSRA 1995; Mosel and Shamp 1993). Rosenstein (1994) divides leadership into two distinct but correlated behaviors:

1. Consideration, which focuses more on the relationship-based team processes, e.g., the extent to which the team leader facilitates open communication among team members

2. Initiating structure, which focuses more on the task-oriented team processes, e.g., the ability of the team leader to plan and coordinate the team’s activities capably.

3. In addition to these two behavioral factors, researchers have also emphasized the team leader’s overall characteristics, such as skills and commitment (Smith and Hukill 1994; Juran 1994). We therefore evaluate the dimension of leadership on all three factors.

Outcome Variables

Outcome variables constitute the results of the team’s performance. We identified four different outcome variables that have been the focus of existing research studies on team performance: benefits to individual team members, cross-functional cooperation, team efficiency, and team effectiveness.

1. Benefits to individual team members assesses the influence of the team experience on individual team members (Hackman 1987). Increased job satisfaction, a feeling of accomplishment, and a more problem-focused approach to the daily work are some of the benefits that members derive as a result of participating on teams (Juran 1994; Campion et al. 1993).

2. Improvement in cross-functional cooperation is a very common positive outcome of successful QI team efforts (CHSRA 1995). Studies have shown that participation in QI teams by members of different departments often results in the development of mutual trust and respect across departments and a greater understanding of the system, which leads to improved interdepart- mental cooperation and communication (Rollins et al. 1994; Juran 1994).

3. The output of the team’s effort is measured both in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Team efficiency assumes importance because organizations implementing TQM often complain about the time required to experience significant improvement (Early and Godfrey 1995). In a study of causes of delays in completing QI projects, Early and Godfrey (1995) report that up to 62.8% of the total time taken by the teams could have been avoided. Team productivity has also been a key outcome measure in studies of various other work groups (e.g., Campion et al. 1993).

4. Team effectiveness can be assessed by both qualitative and quantitative measures (Landy and Farr 1983; Guzzo and Dickson 1996). Qualitative measures are more subjective and judgmen- tal, such as ratings that require individuals to evaluate the performance of the team (e.g., Campion et al. 1993). Quantitative measures, on the other hand, are objective and nonjudg- mental, such as reduction in length of stay, dollars saved, and reduction in error rate (e.g., CHSRA 1995).